jawarner

Yeah, the "and then" implies you first move and then move the duck. At least that's how it makes sense to me. That way you're blocking your opponent's move with the duck.

It’s possible that in serving the function of prediction, the model forms a complex internal representation akin even to goals, motivations, etc. It is true that DL architectures are not explicitly designed to do this, not yet anyway. But my point is that the task of prediction can give rise to such architectural patterns. According to Karl Friston’s Free Energy Principle, biological brains serve the purpose of predicting the value of different actions available.

That's fascinating; I'm not familiar with this use case. Is there anything stopping you from using the SVG output of Inkscape?

I’m not sure it follows that the entire circuit can be subject to this kind of interrogation resulting in a neat story. We can always try to find narratives, but at the end of the day there’s no reason for all the parameter values learned to adhere to some nice human-parsable reason for existing.

Edit: Maybe in theory you could “understand” anything arbitrarily large if you just had enough memory to handle very complicated narratives. But I’m doubting that models can always be compressed into a simpler narrative representation.

I see your point that there's no way that weight levels are entirely predetermined by genetics. To your point there are various cultures around the world who suffer more or less from obesity.

I don't understand this genetic determinism of weight to be the claim of Set Point Theory, which to my understanding is involved in energy homeostasis, which you acknowledged. Your body sets your metabolism, and it can tune it up or down. There are homeostatic processes in place such that your body "knows" whether it is underweight or overweight.

I'm not sure if there is a more specific objection you have to set point theory. It certainly has its limitations as to what it can explain, but it seems to be a useful concept or model.

It's true that your body doesn't digest all the available calories in food, and the energy extracted from the food is going to vary by food source, along with the digestion profile, or glycemic index.

So, it is true that:

> You can lose weight in a caloric surplus diet

But I don't see how it's possible to:

> gain weight in a caloric deficit diet

There are many sources of digestible and energetic food, even outside the primary 3 macronutrients. There's alcohol, for instances, in addition to the basic fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Sand I don't understand to be calorically rich at all. Quartz isn't even an organic compound.

Not all urban parks are created equally. I live close to a park 100s of acres in size in a city (Austin, TX).

You’re not really responding to my points. You’re trying to enforce a sense of male victim hood that isn’t supported by the evidence you’re presenting.

What are TF and CS?

> The 4x self-inflicted death rate compared to women should be evidence enough.

This seems like a manipulative use of mental health statistics. Need I remind you that women attempt suicide at a much greater rate than men? Regardless everyone is responsible for their own emotional well-being at the end of the day. It's not right to blame women for male loneliness. After all, I can just as easily flip the script. If your claim is that heterosexual men are miserable due to a lack of dating prospects, then there are an equal number of frustrating heterosexual women unable to find a good relationship. Don't they also feel loneliness? The truth is that dating is hard, and it can be painful for everyone, men and women. Women also encounter a unique set of problems when it comes to dating, e.g., violence, that is experienced less by men.

Yes, and your point makes of the OP article's take on "the list" of requirements for a partner. A lot of people do get trapped into an unduly logical mode of thinking about prospective partners. I could see that dating on apps would encourage this way of thinking. I strongly agree with the article's take:

> For ex: someone might say, what I want is a guy who’s athletic, has a stable job, wants to have children, good relationship with his family, is funny and emotionally aware. I don’t think lists like that are helpful, because you’re probably subconsciously filtering based on those qualities anyway. The real thing people should be actively looking for is strong emotional connection, as in: to what degree can I share who I am with this person, do they get it, how interested are they in who I am, my feelings and thoughts, can we accommodate each other’s preferences, are we good at talking.

You make some big claims.

1. Apps or no, dating is still about interfacing with another person. It's hardly true that the dating app is "servicing our desires." It's not. It's just a window into another person.

2. "The more unhappy you are the more you will spend in your date-death spiral." Is this even a thing? I would imagine a very unhappy person would not date a lot. Or they would be settled into an unhappy relationship. Is it really true that dating has historically resulted in more happy relationships? I'd love to see evidence to this point because I know a lot of people whose parents were in unhappy relationships. That model, from my perspective, didn't have the best results.

A lot of comments here missing the point of the article. People are quick to blame apps for dating pain. Reading the article, very few of the author's points are caused by the app-ification of dating. It is easy to blame "the corporations" for social issues. Let's get specific about what is happening.

The article does offer good insight, which I'll highlight here:

1. The root of many dating issues is a lack of communication:

> When I was in my late teens or early 20s I would sometimes be in the early stages of dating someone and feel like there was a glass wall between us, I just didn’t really get them, I didn’t know what they wanted from me, and it was so hard for me to have any clarity about who they really are.

2. Most people in their decision-making around relationships are reacting to social pressure rather than following their self-awareness. As an example:

> Most people turn to frameworks: either I’m religious, so I’ll wait until marriage, or I don’t think sex is sacred, so I guess I’m open to casual sex

3. In modern dating people tend to have more options, and this magnifies the need for (1) open communication and (2) honest introspection.

Do you really think dating used to be easy? I fail to see how "dating apps and social media" is the direct cause of the problems you mention, or that any of those problems are new to society.

If I can pick your brain, there’s a related concept — entropy production. How does that relate with these ideas?

That’s interesting. I’ve always figured it’s the opposite, since a public company is beholden to fiduciary duty. Would you like to elaborate?

If you can get to Chapter 2 it's a lot more approachable.

> that seems to be just a special case of "How do I tell if someone is being honest?"

Is it that simple? Nobody is doubting the honesty of anyone involved. The real matter is there is a cultural tradition called gender, and some people see it as a flexible thing, and to others it’s not, or less so.

You linked to the HRC FAQ, so you must have felt it was relevant to what lliamander was saying. I’m curious what information it contains that could convince someone to be more flexible in their gender definition? What would you say to someone who doubts the validity of non-binary identities? What would it take to convince you that those “extreme,” to reflect your language, neopronoun-based identities are real and valid?

> If I understand correctly, you are concerned about cases where someone does not accept either 'they', 'he' or 'she' as acceptable pronouns.

That’s not what I said at all. I’m not sure how you got that impression. I brought up neopronouns to show that most people have a degree of inflexibility in their conception of gender. These examples you’re asking for are besides the point.

Edit: Do you see how I’m using devils advocate? I personally believe that transgender identities are real and valid, for whatever that’s worth. But if you consider an extremely liberal position on gender, it’s useful to see how you react to it.

All too often in these discussions, one side is just saying to be kind to everyone, while the other insists on a philosophical debate, so they end up talking past each other. I would hope that someone learning about trans people is able to update their beliefs about gender: “I used to believe that gender is always tied to sex, but there seems to be a sizeable majority of people for whom this is not the case, and so I will update my beliefs and learn.” Anybody who isn’t capable of this is honestly stubborn, and there are also assholes who go out of their way to harass or debate this topic in contexts where they shouldn’t. The majority of discussion around gender should focus on these points and being humble about your beliefs and kind to others.

But these are all points agreed on by myself, GP, and GGP comments. The question you replied to asked, “Yes, we should be kind to people and refer to people how they prefer. But, there are some non-binary identities that I don’t have buy-in for. I will of course refer to people by their preferred pronouns to be kind, but can anyone give another reason?” There is a place for this kind of conversation, too, on occasion.

My point in using the extreme example is not to suggest that people are insisting on their use. I chose a fringe example, for which it is socially acceptable to express skepticism, in order to illustrate the point that there are gray areas in how society validates some identities and is less inclusive of others.

In the link you provided, one Redditor "struggles to stay progressive about" neo-pronouns. Another Redditor considers such skepticism to be "extremely gatekeepy and transphobic."

I don't have any reason to believe that someone preferring kitten-folk pronouns is being dishonest or disingenuous, even in this more extreme example.

But what is the principle under which some identity claims are accepted more than others? I have my own thoughts, but I'm curious to get yours. Do you think there is room in society for people on occasion to feel uncomfortable with someone's proposed identity?

It's important to be kind to everyone. Anyone "skeptical" of a trans person really ought to mind their own business. I agree with you there.

To play devil's advocate, some identities have less currency in current society. See "Neopronoun" [1] for examples. To lliamander's point, there is a gray area where not everyone is going to feel comfortable with unfamiliar gender constructs. If the rule is to accept everybody's identity at face value, then that closes down any space to feel uncomfortable calling someone "kitten," to use an extreme example.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun

Don't worship the man. Hard work and ambition are aspects of his character deserving respect, no doubt. But he's not perfect. Not all aspects of his character are worth emulating, and he has his blindspots like everyone else.

On any given issue, some people care more about it, and some people care less about it. Special groups in general are not a bad thing.

> If there were just profit seeking companies, and no opposing forces, that could be bad too, and maybe cause the kind of things you're talking about.

That's exactly what the problem is. On many issues, there are no opposing forces to the special interest groups. These arise when for example when an industry causes a small issue for a large population. It's difficult to organize and litigate in such cases.

Edit: I think we're mostly in agreement. I think what is needed is, like GP suggested, a rational way to balance the incentives for the special interests and the public good. Our current system relies on mustering large public support to make legal changes for the public good, but that's not scalable, and doesn't tend to rational, balanced thinking.

In a lot of cases, the relationship between a product and a consumer is abusive. Take heroin for example. There is a huge (black) market for heroin. People "want" it, and will become addicted to it, and "want" it even more. The monetary value of a product is not a measure of how much good it does.

Agreed. I call these "Lorax problems" when there's nobody there to speak for the common interest. It generally takes a drastic public spectacle to muster the political wherewithal to make a law in these cases. It took DDT killing bald eagles for the feds to make the EPA and the Clean Water and Clean Air acts. It took an oil spill to hold oil, inc. accountable for (a fraction of) their pollution.

It's interesting that we can measure, quantiatively, what the dynamical operating mode of a system is. It's interesting, to me anyway, because it's a high-level characteristic that describes most (all?) information processing systems.

Chickens eat bugs. It's not so far off.

Yes, this is evolution, and that's generally how evolution works. There is some diversity in a population, and natural selection promotes some traits over others.

Right. The result of the protest is an unsafe environment for the professor. My point is just that any protest I can think of, whether it’s outside a government building, a business, or on a college campus, involves being present, so it doesn’t seem out of the ordinary. That’s not to say I condone an unsafe work environment, to be clear.

Yeah, the flares do add a level of spectacle. Do you see the 2nd amendment protests then as similarly abnormal?

See, to me, any protest involves a mob, and I would be concerned for safety of the target regardless of whether people had guns or flares or fists or rocks, you know?