bondarchuk

This whole thread is about wanting to talk with strangers because it makes you feel good, if approval from strangers makes you feel good the natural corollary is rejection from strangers can also make you feel bad. It would be bit weird to go out of your way to talk to people because you'd enjoy their kindness but then when they're unkind turn around all like "oh I never cared about you anyway". Isn't it?

Fair, if you've always only drunk decaf that would be an exception.

The title is "Out of light", "adjust" and "share" are just buttons picked up by the title-izer. Lol.

You can drink good coffee for the caffeine, too. I think anyone (not necessarily saying that's you) saying it's only about the taste and has nothing to do with caffeine is fooling themselves. The reason you were able to trick yourself into liking this bitter stuff is because it gets reinforced with caffeine.

I know nothing about this but JumpCrisscross seems to use "political" to mean "has donated large sums of money" while your use of "political" is more like.. someone who does politics.

Yes, see my other comment about primates https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47135674

Noted. But really, I'm also saying your description is wrong.

>As long as there's a country willing to build and sell ESP32s, I think it would be fairly easy to get hold of them.

You could say the same about firearms.

>Is a government really going to ban all electronics?

All electronics that can be freely programmed by the owner, not impossible.

Submitted 6 days ago but flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47059129

@dang can this get a second chance?

Do you really think that proves anything? It strikes me as a disingenuous argument.

I don't know why you keep doubling down. You can read in the text I linked that I'm right and you're wrong. Goodbye.

Shablulman is shadowbanned.

The context is "Anthropic treating models like people" which is 100% about consciousness, suffering, subjective awareness etc..

edit: in case you hadn't seen it, this kind of stuff https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations

If they really think models can be conscious, they should just drop everything they're doing and never touch it again and try to convince anyone else to do the same. The half-assed safeguards they're implementing wouldn't be nearly enough. We can conclude either they legitimately believe this and are behaving morally abhorrently, or they don't really believe it and are just joking around for PR reasons. (probably the latter tbh)

For those that do believe there's a chance models are/will be conscious this precedent of "oh yeah they're conscious but we can just not put in the prompts that make it suffer lol" is pretty freaky.

I never denied that. I only said "It's really idiotic to posit that only things that eat and drink can suffer.". Don't just pattern-match everything to some vaguely related black/white issues.

I see several people say primates don't show the effect, however all tests on primates were done with a "language-competent bonobo" and "touchscreen trained chimpanzees (N=6) and gorillas (N=2)" that are first trained to do various language/picture association tasks and then tested like how you'd test humans. It would be interesting to test primates using the same methodology they used here on chickens. The previous language/computer training in the monkeys might have interfered with a more low-level/intuitive bouba-kiki effect.

References here https://evolang.org/jcole2022/proceedings/papers/JCoLE2022_p...

It's not about "understanding" that you or me do when we read a wikipedia article. It's about the mechanisms in the brain that encode things.

But then you are "pulling out the stops"! That sounds louder, doesn't it.

It shows that bouba-kiki is not sufficient, but it doesn't show that it is not necessary.

Yes, it's hard work to build a society where people behave responsibly and in their best interests. But I'd prefer we actually put in the effort rather than go for the easy authoritarian option out of basically laziness and contempt for your fellow man.

(fwiw I regularly talk to parents who are quite aware of various parental controls and use them effectively, combined with talking to their kids and just general good parenting practices)

People are saying privacy is dead for decades, yet privacy continually declines more and more. And there's still quite a ways it can go from here. The defeatist attitude only helps further erosion.

It's kind of weird to me how every article on this topic here has people rushing to comment within a couple minutes with some generic "yes I too support ID checks for internet use!". Has the vibe really shifted so much among tech-literate people?

It is a valid alternative avenue towards a legal implementation of "child safeguarding" IMO. Someone pays for the internet, that person is responsible for what minors do on their connection. If they have trouble doing that we can use normal societal mechanisms like idk social services, education, and government messaging.

This is the way it works with e.g. alcohol and cigarettes, most places. Famously kids can just get a beer from a random fridge and chug it, but someone 16/18/21+ will be responsible and everyone seems mostly fine with this.

I cannot find anything on google nor on google scholar under "core sight set" that has anything to do with language.

In fact the term does not appear to exist at all.

I think GP is making a subtler point, not that listening to audio books is worse than reading books with your eyes, but that it's telling that people who listen to audio books themselves go out of their way to emphasize that it's equivalent to reading, thus betraying that in their own value system they put a higher value on (actual) reading.

It's not about having to put in effort for the sake of it, the point is that building something by hand you will gain insight into the problem, which insight then becomes a valuable contribution.

They were not talking about MRI, there is a significant difference (purported).

They were not talking about MRI, there is a significant difference.

No, I am not talking about aura at all, I'm just saying that the physical, measurable sound that an instrument produces in response to being played, physically and measurably, could have more subtle effects on artistic performance (as a consequence of the physical vibrations of the object and the way those vibrations respond to the player and vice versa) than those that could be elided in an afternoon of A/B-testing under the banner of "stradivarius myth DEBUNKED".

Everything is on the table if people vote for it.