justanotherjoe

This is in line with what I've heard a few times before. It's like self induced psychosis sometimes.

Anyway, your whole world being inside your mind is self-evident to me. That is what the superego is, partly. An integrity model/simulacrum of the outside world. We have it so we can run simulations and outcomes without actually being 'reported' and judged in reality.

Anyway, i thought it is interesting. My theory is that psychedelics allow us to update these integrity models which usually maintains its integrity by being outside of our control. Since it's usually lagging behind our developing worldview and needs.

I think advocating is impossible to be done by managers effectively. There're just so many dimensions involved and it's genuinely non-trivial. The best workplace is where the employees advocate for each other. Because everyone notices different things about others, but they often just keep it to themselves. They assume just because it is revealed to them it must be obvious to others as well. Not so.

And advocating for yourself is just doomed to fail. But that doesn't mean you don't have a voice. You do, for others; due to the nature of how advocating works.

When i first used netflix at my friends house, I immediately used the search bar and looked for Jurassic Park... what kind of movie service doesn't have JP, i thought. It must be around 10 years ago, and I never used it once afterwards.

A couple things come to mind reading this. Maybe your professor knew the material was engaging in itself or the textbook was exceptionally well written that any added structure on top was likely to complicate it. The second possibility was that maybe they knew it was a fundamental course that students must engage with anyway.

Regarding the lack of feedback, maybe grade was sufficient. Sometimes enough is best.

I feel like whats most important in teaching is that the teacher has integrity. If you can control the teacher in any way, that loses the dynamic. In fact, his idiosyncratic method might indirectly increased his integrity score, which we subconsciously evaluate on teachers before we allow ourselves to engage.

It's very rare that someone proactively tries to be more caring to others. I try to be one myself. I'm so rude and disinterested usually. Especially to other guys.

I'm not sure I get it. So you want to have higher positions filled by h1b holders? The quota will be maxxed anyway. I don't have issues with that, personally.

The obvious next step is where you can easily put new knowledge inside the parameters of the model itself.

I want the AI to know my codebase the same way it knows the earth is round. Without any context fed to it each time.

Instead we have this weird Memento-esque setup where you have to give it context each time.

I'm conflicted about this. On one hand i sympathize. On the other hand, it's really up to them who to hire. All the 'shoulds' discussed here are really just your assumptions, albeit very reasonable ones. Yeah it's really tough. You can't force someone to like you, they kinda have the prerogative.

This reminds me of better call saul where hamlin paid millions of dollars out of his own pocket just to not have Chuck working at HHM anymore. Which by his own words was the greatest legal mind he ever met. Sometimes people's principles work against you. And you don't have any moral ground to challenge that.

On the other hand, this attention might be working in your favor though.

Prostitution was legal and regulated by the catholic church as necessary and understandable evil for centuries, until 15th century. Even Thomas Aquinas (huge stickler) agreed. And why wouldn't it be? It was what common sense would tell you. Learned christians would understand sexual sins are far from the worst ones.

Also additional context, before the 12th century priests were allowed to marry and have children. It was taken away, to consolidate the church's property.

I would say all knowledge have that effect on us. Kinda the inherent drawback of it. Lessens enjoyments somewhat.

They have a religion whose identity is in being oppressed in a world where they are the de facto ruler.

You are watching american money hard at work, my friend. It's either glorious or reckless, hard to tell for now.

I'm not versed in the subject, byt cynically i will say the same as anything that came out of this admin: wealth moving from the poor and gullible and into the rich.

How could china 'dominate' computer science when most seminal ai papers came out of google alone?

I'm very curious about how claude performs with the same methodology. Seems to me like an unfortunate ommision.

The use of color is atrocious in new movies. It's the era of high contrast and contrasting colors. They depend on it to make something look 'expensive' and 'premium' even though to me it looks really bad. And played out. Give me washed out greens like My Neighbor Totoro or yes, Jurassic Park, anyday.

It's a self-reinforcing thing. New movies want to look 'new', no matter if 'new' is bad.

I'd say, if you have a core memory at a zoo or a theme park, then you'll probably like it.

This is something I think about, only my framing is that of predictionism; what I mean is society's occupation with predicting things.

This is important because predictions are both 1) necessary to make value judgments of the present and 2) borderline impossible for many things. So you have people making value judgments that hinge on things they have no right to know.

I also classified predictions into three categories, based on difficulty. The easiest being periodic things like movements of planets. The second being things that have been known to happen and might happen again in the future, like war. And the third are novel phenomenas that have never happened before, like superintelligence. Even the second one is hard, the third is impossible.

There are so many predictions that fall in this third category that people are making. But no matter how many 'models' you make, it all falls into the same trap of not having the necessary data to make any kind of estimate of how successful the models will be. It's not the things you consider, it's the things you don't consider. And those tend to be like 80% of the things you should.

Can you describe more about the "ruined punchline" thing? Cause that sounds natural to me. Like in Jurassic Park, Alan Grant hears "We clocked the t-rex at 32 mph" and he goes "Did you just say 't-rex'?". Actually they repeat it like 3 times more to really lean into it.

And I guess my point is that Jurassic Park doesn't feel modern or clumsy in this particular execution.

You can't say he was prescient and use the future as justifications... 'he's prescient because virtual reality in his novel is just like how it's going to be in the future'. Also I don't think these (cybernetics, virtual reality) are uncommon enough predictions to be credited to him.

Oh please. Literally village people in my third world country can do SQL fine. It's not hard at all, you can do it. You are just probably too used to learning things too quickly.

Isn't that basically saying the same thing? I meant at the gate as he's speaking of AGI before the 5 years you mentioned

Yeah and in another 5 years he'd probably be at nobel laureate level in AI. I don't think that's how it works. What do you mean? Even a phd program can take 5 years sometimes. Also the man started saying he'd bring about AGI right at the gate. He wasn't being exactly humble.

God I hate sounding like this. I swear I'm not too good for John Carmack, as he's infinitely smarter than me. But I just find it a bit weird.

I'm not against his discovery, just against the vibe and framing of the op.

I'm not being gatekeeper here. John Carmack came into AI around 2021 iirc and came in Lex Friedman and said he's going to bring about AGI. It's okay for him to try so but he had no particular expertise in the field. He's a brilliant guy and I'm not gonna say he's not going to succeed, or that his opinion is worthless. But people seeemed to think that the whole field is a farce just waiting for an adult to come in and fix it. I find that biased. By the way this is how people end up worshipping figures like Musk. There's a limit to transfer function of human expertise, ironically to the discussion at hand.

That's just what I think anyway.

I don't get why people are so invested in framing it this way. I'm sure there are ways to do the stated objective. John Carmack isn't even an AI guy why is he suddenly the standard.

Another day, another HN-sponsored low quality suggestive paper that will make the rounds...

I rmemember what truly worked for me, as a chronic case, was a 1 day workweek. Granted I did work normal days, but I only mean things that cost motivation like side projects. On other days I even stopped myself when I started to kid myself about 'doing it'. It made me feel gross but that gross feeling helped when the scheduled day comes.

I stopped doing it for some reason. But I remember it worked. For what it is.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this article. To me, the most obvious and earliest case of mass tech layoffs was the Twitter 50% layoff by Musk. The whole lines written fiasco. The lack of mention anywhere is gaslighting me. Couldn't that have been the precedent as well? We know the market hanged on his every word (at least in 2022).

I did. My bad.

Sounds regressive and feeds into the weird unintellectual narrative that llm is just like ngram models (lol, lmao even)

Thr author submitted like 10 papers this May alone. Is that weird?