jhanschoo

Note that Argon was rolled out for IDEs for people on paid AI Pro on Oct 15/Oct 16 (a couple days after Ultra users), but of course, usage limits are extremely low

Hmm you're right it's no more rigorous what I said. (For each positive number the expression must eventually, after finitely many terms, always be smaller than that number thereafter)

But you're not right in that the upper bound of that expression eventually stops decreasing, in fact for simple f and g as long as f is positive and eventually bounded by g the expression will decrease infinitely often if my intuition is correct

Nitpick:

s/must shrink/must eventually shrink, after finitely many n/

Equivalently, must go to zero in the limit.

Don't forget some people go out to public places with their kids

With a Type-C Class S Mk I harness.

In the context of this discussion, rationalist should be taken to refer to people who are or have been active on LessWrong

Oh God, that's why pastors keep giving long-winded sermons that are claim after claim after claim and without any argumentative structure (and divine inspiration stands in for self-belief in one's own intelligence)

Of course, bison was already taken

Assuming that you mean dramatic in the sense of a sudden, singular event in time which many societies and value systems were upended, why do you think that was the case for the Roman Empire?

To add on, importantly, when Gebru called them stochastic parrots, CoT technique was not published yet, and LLMs had finite computational depth per emitted token, and that architectural limitation was a large contributor to hallucinations. But if you give a sufficiently general LLM file read/write (or arbitrary memory storage) and CoT before having to output a token, it is Turing-complete. Architecturally in principle you can have models that are accurate on studied domains, the question being how to grow a model that achieves this by reading literature and cheap RL on experiments, rather than curated design.

What do you mean by a "recursion bug"? The terminology does not occur in the article so it seems to be a term that means something to you that is not very clear to me.

> The problem is, how trustworthy are proof checkers? Are there bugs? And is the underlying theory itself free of paradoxes and unknowables and mathematical "bugs" that can be exploited? Imagine a human mathematician hell bent on deceiving other mathematicians - would we trust their breakthroughs, even with a verifier?

---

> Autumn of verified Lean kernels

Have you read this section (and immediately following sections) in the article? It seems that it partly addresses your thoughts. Perhaps you should comment replying to it.

> No one succeeds in making accurate predictions of the future over a 40 year time scale.

The sports analogy holds; the future location of the ball may be uncertain, but that is the student's target, and not overcommitting to the present location of the ball. The commenter is expressing disappointment that the commentary seems to be reacting to the present too much.

Yes, TCS is theoretical computer science, I commonly use that acronym too.

Assuming that by this you mean giving end-users tokens, you can't file giving tokens away under a cash flow of investing activities line.

Giving away tokens just reduces their revenue line, while increasing operational costs. Both these accounts look stable.

The anomaly is the cash flow of investing activities, which is not something you can put such activity as you have described under.

> If stats from dating websites are to be believed, all women tend to flock on all the same tiny percentage of men and ignore the rest.

These are on platforms where you have profile pics and jobs, front and center on your profile, and the algorithm learns from your preferences based on that. The questions on this platform seem to suggest that the algorithm matches based on anything but that, so perhaps we have different, more open-minded outcomes on what a good partner for someone is like rather than who the ideal man/woman is like.

Nobody is obligated to use this service if they don't want to. For those that use a dating app to look for long-term relationships I fail to see how match group apps are better for the average individual and for society.

The aesthetics of it are definitely the case, but I don't see what else you would choose for a seed group for a project by government services.

> Hannah Chinn: And so I was a kid who used weird parts of the internet not as they were originally designed to talk to my friends. I talked back and forth with my friends on Google Docs. And we would type things and then delete them, and then type things and then make them invisible by making the text white on the white background. So I think this is familiar behavior to me.

: DD

Clearly the details matter in this making such a decision, and not everyone has the same capabilities to "steer the ship" from within or out. You don't know if there are concerned people within acting, but see most obviously concerned people leaving to act (or at least refuse to act).

From hearsay, I hear that prestigious private schools tend to communicate very frequently, which manufactures value and evidence that the school has rich experiences for the students. And there may be a mutual expectation for parents to be "involved" in it, contrasted with families that require schools to serve as a childcare.

You don't need the onerous assumption that the universe is algorithmically generated, just that all ways to reason about and communicate intelligently for the purpose of making decisions is digital.

As a young adult that data analysis blog post seemed like cool shit, and today I'm horrified because it seemed like cool shit. They make for "cute" PR soundbites, and back then the data analysts likely didn't know better, but they are terribly biased and reductive by virtue of the structure of the platform, and can't be used to support anything essential or fundamental about human romance.

> Most of climate change happens not because some decrepit old man lives on his yacht but poor people in third world countries get their first air conditioners.

You're confusing acceleration with velocity. Poor people are far from the greatest per capita contributors.

It's also the case that different people have different mouths and habits and there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the best option might be to try a variety of options and see what sticks for you.

> I wasn’t sure how I felt about these local moratoriums or about the tech-optimist gung-ho “let’s build” attitude. Both seemed kind of wrong to me. I think we need to be very deliberate—we need to have a robust public debate and understanding of just how and where we apply AI technology. Not “smash the machines” and not “let it rip” either.

My understanding regarding the moratorium is that that is exactly the objective: the current regulatory environment fails to price in the negative externalities of data centers, so their primary investors have an incentive to hem-and-haw on negotiations for revised regulations. A moriatorium is an action that can be taken unilaterally that changes those incentives, that brings them to the negotiating table.

edit: this sentiment is also produced in a comment in the substack (Ben Verschoor):

The thing with the data center issue is that a moratorium is the moderate option, because it gives us space to actually think about what we want to do with this technology and implement it. Recently there was an earnest, centrist-y guy who works for the industry but has concerns who came to our anti-data center group asking us to participate in some roundtable dialogue event. My answer was that as long as these data center projects are still moving forward, using our limited time and bandwidth to engage in dialogue rather than slow and stop their approach would amount to unilateral disarmament.

Reminds me how (iirc) Machiavelli observed that instability and dysfunction from class conflict and internal factionalism in Italian city-states often led to the people welcoming external authoritarian rule that brought stability.

On the topic of climate change, off the top of my head, these countries don't have a per capita carbon footprint as large as the US, and the significant ones are I suppose India and China, and China seems open to dialogue on the topic, and is even leading in renewable energy.

They can, surely, but I presume that in some cases there's a lack of preexisting regulation on land use and on others politicians are not properly representing the interests of their constituency.