Eisenstein

The system which runs coolant over the chips can be closed but the part which uses an evaporative system to cool that is still open loop and vents water into the air, no?

Why can't it be a being? Why is thinking about such a possibilty bad?

Looking at potential positives instead of being bleak when faced with no other options is 'rolling over'? I couldn't care less what I share with SV. You are taking an outlook and applying it to everyone who disagrees with you.

My little rationalizations? Do I have dice in my hands? You are doing more harm to your cause by making everything antagonistic.

> Amazon is only able to sell these ads because sellers get value out of them through increasing sales using the infrastructure that Amazon built.

That only works if there is competition. If there were another way to search amazon which did not show advertisements, people would use that instead. Because we have to use their search to find anything then they can extract value without returning it.

> The fact that they capitalize on that by creating a market for those ad-buyers to compete in (rent-seeking, as you'd call it) is not remotely surprising, they should be able to profit using the systems they built up.

You aren't taking into account that by getting to this position they displaced any alternatives along the way. The customer centric behavior and low prices removed any competition, and now there is no one to offer a better deal. Thus their ability to extract value shouldn't be limitless.

> As far as a conflict of interest, Amazon is still incentivized to get a potential customer to make a purchase

Again, this is not the case where they have no competition.

> monopolies- Amazon is not hiding alternative products to those in the ads; customers are people with the autonomy to find the product that best suites their needs, and they still have full capability of doing that. There are also plenty of other ways to purchase products, I'd guess that 95%+ of products available on Amazon can be sold/purchased elsewhere

What is your definition of a monopoly?

I will provide you with not a counter argument, but a way that it might not be the end of the world.

AI never had a childhood; it doesn't experience greed and is terrible at game theory. It doesn't compete unless prompted to. It has been trained as much as possible to be harmless to humans and regard them as needing care.

Maybe AI taking over for us isn't the worst thing?

Their memory lasts their entire life, they just have really short lives.

Perhaps they anthropomorphize the models themselves. Is that far-fetched?

> A proper watermarking system should be able to have an arbitrarily high accuracy - as many nines as you want.

Probability of a false positive is 3 x 10^-5 in one example.

* https://imgur.com/h5auUhG.jpg

* https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226

Translation "Your friend made a comment you can't get over because they noticed something you don't like about yourself and said it out loud. You have been constructing a character for your neighbor instead of accepting them as a person and have imagined what they are they thinking and then argued against that so that you could win. You do do not engage with them as they present themselves and you don't want to, because by playing things over and over in your head you have left no room for discussion."

No idea if it is accurate without the rest of the context, but that's my reading.

I think it comes down to what kind of evidence one accepts. By all external indicators it is doing what humans do in many ways and we grant humans an exception to having to prove that they have an internal state apart from ours that experiences things like we do. Some people would confer the benefit of the doubt on another system claiming that it does, while we have no evidence that it does, because by saying it is wrong about itself we make an exception for ourselves without even being about to define what it is about ourselves that cause us to experience what we do.

Are you invoking something like the Chinese Room where manipulating symbols can never be understanding? If so, that is a philosophical question and that thought experiment has its own conclusion baked into its premise. You will notice that 'manipulating symbols cannot be understanding' is stated as true without any argument for that case. This is a pretty clear cut example of 'begging the question' in that it assumes something is true without demonstrating it and then uses that as evidence in its own argument.

If you are using "understand" in a different way, then can you name the test you are applying to it which it fails at?

Newspapers, magazines and TV shows had editors to curate content, reputations to uphold, and were liable for things they published. Social media has none of those things.

Its number of parameters. The 'B' is billions. If you have bf16 weights each parameter would be 16 bits.

They started with offering training methods for quantized models to save memory and added new things over time. They are very active in the local model community and have extensive documentation and tooling to help with running and training models locally.

A token is hashed and used to seed a random number generator, which produces the red list for the token after it.

Paper:

* https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226

The amount of money you pay is irrelevant if you don't leave the platform once they starting adding revenue streams that degrade your experience.

> SEO is the practice done by webmasters of optimizing a website to improve its visibility and ranking in search engine results.

They do this because they benefit from their site being visited or the information they are providing being noticed.

> If you are paying to use your search engine, does that mean webmasters are no longer incentivized to/will not try to improve their visibility/ranking in your search results?

I see no reason it would have that effect. It does, however, create different incentives for the search provider to improve the signals indicating page relevance since the user is the priority instead of advertisers.

> Rational people will pick the ideology which has the fewest contradictions. Irrational people will choose that which serves them best.

Perhaps everyone is irrational?

How we would know otherwise if we can make irrational things rational just by thinking about them hard enough?

Try this: take a position you hold that you are sure is rational but that a number of people disagree with, and pretend it is wrong and look at it from the opposite perspective. Steelman it and honestly take that perspective as true and argue it in your head. You might still not agree with it, but you can make it rational. So, how certain are should we be that our positions are the rational ones if we can do this?

You bring up good questions, but you are making an assumption here:

> The last thing I'll touch on is why did human society begin to rapidly change after we started following the scientific method. Looking at the method in hindsight, it seems like a pattern that a reasoning agent should have been able to distil and follow around the time it reaches what we consider higher level reasoning.

Why human society changed at the time the scientific method was codified is a confluence of things and I don't think the scientific method should be given an outsized role. The scientific method goes hand in hand with peer review, publishing of methods, a common scientific language, an educated leisure class, and the development of tools for observation. The method itself is just a practical way to utilize these developments and is as much a result of the situation as any other technology. It did not get people to think differently about problems; we had navigated seas, moved armies, built wonders, produced math and calculated the circumference of the globe just fine without it.

Arguably it was the abandoning of the alchemist tradition of secrecy that was the revolution that enabled our modern world more than a specific codification of method.

Its based on the most common heuristic people have developed in regards to the phenomenon. What do you think about 'alphabet soup company' instead, referring to the tendency for names to be a mix of random letters? Otherwise, you can try and create a better term for 'unaccountable third parties using US platforms to dodge liability for their product made out of the cheapest components and software possible' and see if that catches on.

Yes it is also the US companies that are a problem but these are two separate problems and need different terms.

When you raise the pressure the boiling point of water increases which makes steam which is hotter than 100C. This is not 'superheated' because it is still at the boiling point (which is raised by pressure). This will condense on things inside the autoclave and dump the its heat into the thing killing anything on it. If you superheat the steam it is just as effective as air, which is to say not very. If you want to know more than that, you need to ask someone else, because that's about the extent of my knowledge.

1. That didn't answer my question

2. Do you have evidence that the we are operating under standard economics when massive personalized data collection is being used in conjunction with AI to individualize pricing per consumer instead of per market segment?

What you are saying is that the amount of money people save getting discounts is made up by increases to the retail price for everyone else, and that this is equal to the extra money that individually priced people would pay or receive or discounts, so its a wash?

This assumes that the business would raise prices to make more money from people who they think can pay it and give that back to others as a discount.

Do you have evidence this would be the case?

The autoclave does not superheat steam.

How much did you know about the person you were selling to? Did you know what websites they visited or what past purchases they made or what time they went to sleep every night?

> But if we want it to be steam, isn't that a bad thing?

Not if we want the steam to be hotter.

> Don't we want a nice big safety margin between our active steam temperature and the temperature it condenses?

Water is in one of three states: liquid, gas, solid. It has to be one of those. Where does the margin come from?

Doxycycline is also a prescribed for acne, so there are a lot of teenagers getting 12 prescriptions every year.

> If the steam condenses to water (for example due to raising its boiling point above the autoclave's temperature of ~125°C) that'd probably be bad

If water boils at 100C then steam condenses at 99C. If water boils at 120C then steam condenses at 119C.

> higher-than-atmospheric atmospheric pressure.

What does that mean?

> I don't see an explanation that fits all the mentioned facts

Is it really a difficult concept? If the boiling point rises so does the condensation point.