You can know why the analogy holds without having enough detail to compute with it. Likewise you could have a picture that is truly part of you, but where not all of it is, so that you only get halfway there.
It is pretty easy to understand why the Doppler effect happens (at least, if you happen to be exactly my past self). You can easily have the ability to independently come up with the explanation without being able to derive the formula.
Printing with my printers sucks—but e.g. my university has a nice upload service where you upload documents to a website and scan a card at one of multiple printers and can print; and those have always worked like a charm for me. So why is printing sometimes… easy?
He’s going for in the sexy way, not not in the sexy way (perhaps he had a typo when you read it).
A well known example is the idea of using geostationary orbits for communication satellites popularized by Arthur C. Clarke (which he said was possibly subconsciously influenced by George O. Smith’s story in the first Venus Equilateral)
Interesting. To me frosting feels almost physically painful to eat more than a small amount of, and I have no memories of any consequences from eating frosting (besides the immediate “ow”)
It really does seem harder to mass produce! I don’t think it’s an easy to factory farm bears as cows, considering that you have to feed them meat, so you’ll at best get an ordinary/mild commercial success? So the upside to me seems like something within the realm of what is occasionally not already exploited.
An interesting comparison would be to see if other substitute animal fats taste as good?
Also I think rationalists might be selected for having weirder tastes?
I haven’t gotten bad physical consequences from eating too much sugar, but also I wouldn’t know if I do because e.g. frosting is hard to stand for me in a visceral way, just due to the sweetness, and eating too much lesser-sweet stuff still wakes me “sweet tired”. But I don’t notice an impact on e.g. my digestion or my energy (besides that of, like, eating any meal).
From what you said, it sounded like there is an impact from eating too much sugar? What is it?
You don’t have to believe the coherence arguments. Perhaps the best approach is to build something that isn’t (at least, isn’t explicitly/directly) an expected utility maximizer. Then the challenge is to come up with a way to build a thing that does stuff you want without even having that bit of foundation. This seems likely harder than the world where the best approach is a clever trick that fixes it for expected utility maximizers.
My use of “beg the question”, as opposed to the official way, is the objectively superior use, and I will die on this hill:
Like, come on, it’s the natural English interpretation of what that phrase is supposed to mean. I am (usually metaphorically) begging you to ask the question.
Cat’s already out the bag on this one. Give in to the dark side. We have cookies.
There’s already a good term for the other meaning: “assume the conclusion”. This tells you pretty clearly what it means. You don’t have to think to figure it out. A child can understand what it means.
I actually doubt people frequently assume the conclusion without realizing it? But possibly this is me being weird and not doing it a lot. Even in math, I feel like it’s blatantly obvious when you do so, so that the closest you get is having you math-proof-babbler only be able to come up with things that assume the conclusion, which then get recognized as obviously not working for that reason.
Another case I would say: Sometimes, the boilerplate is essential but is “trivial”. What I mean by this is that the fundamental idea of the thing isn’t really about the boilerplate, and that some surrounding context means that you should of course have this sort of boilerplate.
For example, basically every function mentioned in a topology book is going to be continuous. If I say “If we have a continuous map [bla bla] then it’s shiny and purple”, and you focus a bunch on “continuous”, then you are either putting your attention in the wrong place, or need to go back and learn some prerequisite material better.
Well, since you quite literally begged the question: what are you sexual kinks?
I am quite surprised that this happened 3 years ago! This seems really impressive for 3 years ago GPT series? And I expect the models to get better? Yes, it might be a fluke, but wouldn’t we expect current models to have a higher chance of doing a fluke this good?
Though others have made the point essentially, I feel like (a) simple answer bears a simple explanation: Just imagine your hypothesis-turing-machines output (approximate) probabilistic predictions. For example, imagine you output probabilities that are fractions, over a finite portion of the input space, so that you don’t have to worry about that messy infinite continuous stuff.
Note—not sure if the exact form has the same nice properties. However the approximate form should be workable I think.
But the clockwise rule only tells you anything when more than two people are there at the same time. Because A < B < A in clockwise order.
Possible example: Laennec’s invention of the stethoscope in 1816. Of course we would’ve come up with it eventually. But note that Laennec got his inspiration from kids playing with sticks and from his prudishness about putting his ear to a woman’s chest.
Consider that people have been using sound in diagnosis for millenia. But even something as simple as tapping a finger on another (to e.g. feel and hear the liquid in e.g. your lungs (which you don’t want)) was introduced in the mid 1700s by Auenbrugger (though some medieval guy had it too? Not going to count it since it seemed to not be advanced further) and the method also influenced Laennec. Auenbrugger was inspired by his father’s wine business—you tap the barrel to see how much fluid is in it!
So, consider: anyone ‘could have’ come up with either of these for… literal millenia? But they didn’t? And the main inspiration was stuff most medical practicioners weren’t looking at? Note that Laennec had some experience in flute making that helped him make his stethoscopes.
Lastly (Corvisart)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Nicolas_Corvisart] appears to have helped keep the percussion technique of Auenbrugger alive. Laennec learned of percussion from Corvisart’s translation of Auenbrugger—and Corvisart expanded on his findings of how to use the sound info. This isn’t a fundamental discovery, but it looks like he did have significant impact.
Semmelweis, Lister, and Pasteur are great examples. Early adopters of Germ Theory and related issues like sanitation and antiseptics, disbelieved by everyone around them. But you can’t say that they didn’t have impact due to the disbelief—Pasteur was definitely influenced by Lister and Semmelweis, and Pasteur really got the purposefully made vaccines down (whereas with smallpox we lucked out with cowpox happening to already exist). So unlike others whose ideas are sufficiently strange as to be rejected (thus giving good evidence of counterfactual discovery, e.g. Mendel whose work was only rediscovered about when the actual content was being refigured out.), they managed to create huge counterfactual impact.
So I guess, if you can’t convince most people, at least manage to convince a handful of early adopters well positioned to reap the rewards of your ideas?
Additionally, the neural nets (afaik) are used in evaluation of a position, but not for stateful “strategy”. That is, the overall algorithm has a heuristic evaluation function (potentially incorporating a neural network), and then chooses a move by doing the sort of “future calculation” that humans do, except in fancy ways to make it compute fast.
An example, to point out that this isn’t necessarily a market failure caused by imperfect information/biases: fiction. Something new has a lower bar that something old. You can’t surprise me with the same plot twists, can’t give the same novel speculation (especially for the most important parts of the work, which I forget less).
Likewise if I have a way of detecting errors in e.g. code, I may want a completely-different-paradigm tester even if it’s on average worse, in hopes of catching the places where my first tester failed—likewise for emergency preparedness and backup techniques generally, where you want to minimize positive correlation in error so that something is very likely to work at all.
Sub-likewise, generally if you are willing to take a hit to the mean in favor of increasing variance (because you care about the positive heavy tails more than the negative ones, e.g. if you can take the max of your attempts, or if you need a hail mary in football to win) you will have an example of wanting worse but different.
Can a computer do this? That is, take in the footage and output a drawing or a 3D model that accurate? I don’t know what SOTA of that sort of image processing is (and of course nowadays we have better ML models).
The way I think about it is it’s based on what I care about. I am in fact unwilling to do certain things to save the life of someone who is threatening suicide and blaming me, because I care more about myself, and I am fundamentally okay with caring about myself in that way. If, say, my best friend made some stupid mistake that put her at risk of great harm, I would be doing the heroic responsibility thing because I care a lot about the outcome.
It’s fine to care about yourself! The principle of “I am obligated not to harm you, but not obligated to help you” is a fine one. The point of heroic responsibility is to see what I could do in cases where I do want to go all out to achieve some outcome.