You must have played Outer Wilds, right? If by some chance you haven’t, I highly recommend it: it seems like it’s a perfect example of the genre you like.
Shankar Sivarajan
Karma: 1,481
I guess this is karma for me ever having replied to a question with a link to lmgtfy[1].
I thought it would be clear from context that what I was asking for was a first-hand account of how (and whether) such adversarial strategies, which I read are simple enough to be possible to learn and implement unaided over-the-board, had impacted play in these no-stakes Go schools.
- ^
In my defense, that was like fifteen years ago, back when Google still reliably answered questions.
- ^
There was a paper I read a few years ago where they said if they played a really unusual strategy – not a good one; I think it was one a human would have recognized as a blunder – it was out of distribution enough that the AI gets confused and loses. Whatever came of that?
the hard thing about learning reading/writing is the initial visualsymbol-language mapping.
This was also my experience learning to read Tengwar (Tolkien’s writing system for his elvish languages), and Hangul (but I also learned to read some non-alphabet scripts in childhood, so that might be an advantage). I agree the concept of writing down language at all is the hardest to grok, and once you have that down, literacy is fairly easy to transfer to new scripts.
Incidentally, this might explain the unexpectedly strong reaction against the very idea of a script for writing sign language I found amongst the deaf. I conjecture they might not have made this connection, and treat their signing and the symbolic manipulation they perform for, say, English, as entirely different.
I also recommend reading the old MathPages posts on this: Infinite Grid of Resistors and The Algebra of an Infinite Grid of Resistors.
During the 2016 election, many prominent media outlets presented odds of ~99% for a Hillary Clinton victory, and then defended such claims after the election by saying things like “well, 1-in-a-100 events do still happen.” In my experience, people have mostly stopped doing this and present more reasonable figures, and I attribute this largely to the rise of prediction markets, which many news outlets have started citing directly.
They have clearly “raised the sanity waterline,” one of the famous goals of at least the rationalists, if not EA.
Do you think it is more important to dissect the way that people communicate, or to protect vulnerable people from predators?
And this is how you end up with baseless, unprovably vague accusations that no one can observe are obvious nonsense lest they too be tarred as “exceptionally evil.”
It is in fact much more important to protect what communication norms one might have that safeguard against this, even at great cost to “vulnerable people.”
I’m reminded of my favorite passage in the Bible, 1 Samuel 8:11–18, when the Israelites ask Samuel to anoint a king to rule over them like all the other nations have, and he warns them how bad it could get.
sympathetic to the current equilibria among major nation states to not assassinate leaders of foreign nations,
You don’t see this norm as simply the leadership colluding to keep sending the commoners they rule over to the meat grinder to reduce their own personal risk?
he did not call for bombing of the datacenters.
His literal words were “destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.” Your deliberate omission of what he did call for, so the reader might decide for himself whether this purported distinction is indeed with a salient difference, is far more misleading than the extremely close paraphrase.
But the British failed to maintain their monopoly. Would you say that caused the Crown to cease being “legitimate”? Or perhaps that happened as soon as it became possible to successfully rebel, even before any actual rebellion took place; in that case, declaring your sovereignty and attempting to defend it with violence is the way of discovering that fact.
I’m not pretending to confusion. I’m calling out the hypocrisy in your sanctimonious denunciation of some minor ineffectual violence while simultaneously publicly advocating for far worse, just gussied up.
But no, I did not expect any response from you other than the typical reaction to any such special pleading being pointed out: “false equivalence,” “whataboutism”, “tu quoque fallacy” etc.
we need a political and regulatory solution.
This is just elevating your aesthetic preference for what the violence you’re advocating for looks like to a moral principle. The claim that throwing a Molotov cocktail at one guy’s house is counterproductive to the goal of “bombing the datacenters” is a better argument, though one I do not believe.
Of course, it still makes sense for you to enforce these policies. Because you fear the violence the state might bring down on you if you don’t.
mass epistemic failure
It seems to me an example of “epistemic failure” to think the “key decision makers” genuinely didn’t understand and not simply lying.
This seems to also be consistent with the companies that release open models (here, Google and Gemma) doing something to them that makes this simple steering not work, for Safety reasons, while the larger and more capable internal model can be steered just fine.
Does the complementary person, whose predictions are shit but can confabulate plausible/convincing justifications for them have any knowledge?
Are you still using Suno for these, or is there anything better now?
“We need to do something. An international treaty, whatever its actual content, is something. Therefore, …”
Nice try, but the chemistry question is asking for the structure of the monomer given the polymer. It doesn’t take much chemistry to figure out the answer is actually B: just flip the repeated unit horizontally, and add water (-H on one side, -OH on the other).
Bonus: we can apply a similar level of understanding of Finnish to translate poly-3-hydroksivaleraatti to “poly-3-hydroxyvalerate,” whose monomer is 3-Hydroxyvaleric acid.
Relevant xkcd: 1252