glial

I think of System 1 as a hash map. If you have a map, and see a new state/key whose action/value is not defined in the map, you have to go with System 2.

System 1/2 is the pop version, but the fast/slow distinction is prevalent in both RL and computational cognitive science, sometimes going under different names: procedural/deliberative, model-free/model-based, automatic/controlled, associative/rule-based, autonomous/algorithmic, etc.

'fast' means executing a policy, that is, a state-action mapping. A trained RL model does this.

'slow' means making one or several action-dependent forecasts, evaluating the expected value of the outcomes, and making a decision based on that.

Neither map exactly to the situation with LLMs, but very roughly, the first is analogous to trained classifiers and the second to reasoning models.

The analogy breaks down, since each instance of token being produced is an example of a policy execution (system 1), and reasoning is just stringing lots of these together. But there are those who argued, before LLMs, that system 2 is just "policy composition" anyway...

> it suddenly looks a lot more plausible that “new” “ideas” can emerge from that process

This is not intuitive to me. It seems like a "new idea" is something that (almost by definition) isn't in the training set. Can you elaborate a bit?

Edit: but perhaps a good model could arise from training, which would be a good idea in the sense that parsimonious ideas are good scientific ideas.

Yes, that's why psychology is the hardest science.

This makes sense to me.

I get a similar ick when I hear someone say "I enjoy consuming this type of content." They're not selling anything, but they are still adopting the soulless language. Like, if it still exists after you interact with it, you haven't consumed anything. Second, do you really see yourself this way? Why not just say "I love to read travel blogs"?

I appreciate this push-back. I keep a running list of words like this...content, product, device, experience, space, vehicle, resource, etc. I can't put my finger on why, but all of these make me distrust the speaker.

The key operation of Bayesian inference is integrating information. This can be from the same source (an additional coin flip, for example) or from different sources (coin flips, plus auxiliary knowledge about where the coin came from, or the person's motives).

Calculated frequency is a point-estimate of bias. A Bayesian estimate is a distribution of belief over possible values of the bias, integrating all available information.

Someone walks out of a magic store holding a coin.

They propose a bet. If they flip it 100 times and the proportion of heads is within [0.4, 0.6], you win $100. If it's not, you pay $100. Do you take that bet?

Explanation: absent the magic store scenario, a `rational' person would take the bet. Your prior belief is that most coins are roughly unbiased. Given that they walked out of a magic store, you now have additional information. Maybe the coin is a trick coin. In that case, your belief that the coin is unbiased should be weaker, even if you don't know which direction the coin is biased in.

This illustrates two things: one, additional information (magic store) can update your beliefs. Two, a strong prior and a weak prior, in this case about the coin's bias, can lead to materially different decisions.

> This is just the WSJ-reading "haves" justifying

The WSJ has had a string of such apologetics lately. I know because family members keep sending them to me.

Another example:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/european-soccer-fans-marvel-at-t...

Paper reviews are traditionally blinded, so the reviewer doesn't know the authorship of the paper they're reading.

My own preference would be to build educational experiences on three pillars:

1. experiences. Intuition comes from experiences, and IMO an under-appreciated amount of 'education' is building strong intuitions. Experiences can include project work (including struggling!), travel & reading (what it's like to be someone else), sports and music (what it's like to build skills over time and work as a team).

2. practice. So much of what we can do - from language to mathematics - is a composition of rote behaviors, responses, and habits. It's impossible to become skilled without practice.

3. building habits of mind. This includes scientific thinking, applying mental models (I like this list here: https://fs.blog/mental-models/), pro-social behavior (listening, conversing). Much of science & math is having an available set of mental models, understanding how/where to apply them, and recognizing when a new one is needed.

My preference would be for traditional subjects to be taught with these firmly in mind: when thinking about biology, for example, what are the rote skills that must be learned? What intuitions should students achieve, and what experiences will enable them? What habits of mind produce an orientation, attitude, or set of thought processes conducive to practicing the science and art of biology?

I think this doesn't contradict the author.

That faith and ethics can be so easily conflated points to a failure of Western post-enlightenment intellectual leadership.

On the other hand, perhaps this is just responsibility laundering on behalf of the tech orgs.

I think this agrees with the parent's point. How do you know when to refactor?

I'm not convinced. There is already an 'Auto' and 'P/A/S' setting option on most of these cameras. P/A/S is great for those who want control. I wish Auto was better for those who don't care and just want good photos.

In other words, no camera exists that has great computational photography and a lens bigger than your thumbnail. Why?

The use of energy certainly equates directly to a higher standard of living. Oil seems like an implementation detail, with benefits as well as costs. Why not consider other implementation options?

How so?

I wish "real" camera companies were more aggressive about offering computational photography post-processing, at least as an option. I've gotten spoiled by an iPhone. Despite my Sony and Fuji having huge wonderful lenses, I am pretty disappointed when using a dedicated camera and interior lighting leads to slight blur, or a cloudy day produces washed-out skies.

Definitely, but the first 3 issues are also created by human co-workers.

Send it to a significant other, then discuss your differences. Will provide you with a new in-joke.

Well, for one thing, critical thinking and communication skills seem to be in short supply.

I learned to play guitar this way -- listening to CDs and scrubbing back and forth, writing down what I heard. It's great, but it only gets you so far. Learning pentatonic scales was a step-change for me.

Broadly speaking, gambling is just making decisions without knowing the future. It's everywhere.

The SPRT is probably already making your life better: it's used to decrease the cost of medical trails, optimize classifications in high-stakes examinations (i.e. for medical certifications), detect defective manufacturing processes, etc. It sounds like this paper extends the method to groups of hypotheses, whereas the basic version is limited to a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis.

While possible, there are also many bodily processes that are finely tuned through eons of evolution, and destabilizing pressure leads to disorder. Sometimes it's difficult to know which are which (or at least I don't know).

I'm partial to "culture is shared expectations".

Which can, of course, be random, self-reinforcing, etc.

> lacking many core values to guide them

This is a fundamental problem and one reason we're mired in this culture war. Social friction is caused by jostling based on group membership, and there's no common values-based scaffolding we can use to collaborate in building a better way.

I used to scoff when told to say the pledge of allegiance as a young person. Now, the closing words "liberty and justice for all" sound quite aspirational.

Here's a recent write-up by a local: https://wburdine.substack.com/p/letter-from-an-occupied-minn...

Agree, targeted advertising in particular is a trojan horse for many other internet-fueled social ills.

I used mine to buy Macbook Airs with 0% interest just fine. For the iPhone, the fine print says you (now) have to sign up with one of their pre-approved carriers. If you use another - Mint or US Mobile or whatever - you're out of luck.