It’s not mandatory. You have to explicitly enable participation. But most people probably do, as you yourself can’t use the location tracking, unless you opt in yourself.
1,359 karma · joined June 10, 2013
When you are close to them and connected to them, the map will show your own location not the AirPods.
This explains why the AirPods tracked the authors own location at times. Possibly also why the map showed the boys location. He was using Bluetooth so his phone was actively listening, and actively connected to the internet and due to this, the boys iPhone was quick to post it’s location when it heard the authors AirPods. Where as other people in the museum was not using their iPhones so their phones would not be actively listening or if they where would not upload the position in real-time.
But todays networks lacks the recursion(feedback where the output can go directly to the input) that is needed for the type of internalized thoughts that humans have. I guess this is one thing you are pointing at by mentioning the continuousnes of the internals of LLMs.
Evolutionary pressures will make sure that organisms are very close to the edge between to weak and to strong.
One naive way of interpreting this is that 50% of the population will have a immune response that is to strong (above the edge) and 50% to weak (under the edge). But it is naive to say that, as this is a topic that has much more complexities than the one dimensional model that I have described here.
At what percentage the threshold of the statistics for what we call autoimmune disease would be located would be interesting to know.
But to be fair this page was better than most pages that dare to do it, it was almost not buggy on this page.
If you search for patterns in your "input data" you will find them. If you search for the patterns enough, your "mind" will automate the process. Then you have those "patterns" in your "normal" perception.
An example: if focus on the noice floor of you hearing for a few days you will begin to perceive tinnitus.
My hypothesis would be that the man from the article took the drug, became scared cause he perceived scan lines in is visual perception, then placed loots of attention on the scan lines to determine if they would go away. The attention he placed on the scan lines strengthened the perceptions and now he can’t undo the conditioning he did to his visual processing system.
I know it’s not your main point. But anyways.. it does not increase the rhetorical power of your comment.
On a societal level “work” does not generate money.
Money exists as is and is only generated as a consequence of inequality these days. Banks inject money to compensate for the rich who won’t or can’t spend their money.
“Work” generates money-transactions.
Truth, is only valid within the model that it is defined in. True means something like, one thing being in accordance with some other thing according to some model. Example: 1=1 is true according to the rules of math.
There is always a context/model that describes what it means for something to be true, even if you can't see it. If two people seam to be disagreeing about something being true they are just miscommunicating and they are evaluating the things they think they are talking about in different ways.
With this as a background the original header of the article
> Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth?...
Is nonsense, it is a weak way of blaming once own insufficient communication skills on the receiver.
All models have a validity-property, validity is a property that describes how well the model manages to model the thing that it is modeling.
The less validity a model has, the more "wrong" it is.
A description of the earth as flat, seamingly has a lower validity than a description as the earth as a perfect sphere. But ultimately it depends on how one measures validity.
The correction prompt is very important, it will definitely determine the outcome of the process, a bad correction prompt will obviously lead to a garbage result.
Training in steps with different prompts might be of value. First step might be to fix contradictions, then factual errors if that is an issue. This is an idea that I got when viewing the he output of LLaMA, it often contains contradictions (eg. an example I have seen is "Peter is a boy and he is part of the Gama sorority"). Asking it to fix those types of issues should be a first good step.
But I suspect that this type of training would need to be mixed with original training data. Otherwise the restructuring in the model caused by the new training would most likely garble the rest of the model.
1. Ask it things. Let it answer.
2. Ask it to find errors in the answer it outputted and for it to correct the answer.
3. Use the original prompt and the corrected output as training data.
This should, with each iteration make the model less and less likely to output statements that are self contradictions or obviously wrong, until the model can no longer spot its own faults.
You can measure people on many dimensions, and all dimensions that are not truly random will correlate with some aspect of the persons life.
Interestingly, some of the dimensions of the MTBI correlate with dimensions of the "Big 5".
Introversion - Extroversion => Almost the same dimension as in Big 5.
Intuitive - Sensation => Correlate strongly to Big 5 Openness
The longer textual descriptions of the MTBI categories that one can find online are "made up" so they could indeed be said to be a type of pseudoscience.
On google I found that one can get a IPv4 /30 subnet for about 11 USD a year.
reality: “the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.”
That definition allows him to make the argument that he makes; as the definition separates our ideas from the thing that reality is.
It’s a definition with problems…
You have to purchase an extra cable with a grounding pin for your power adapter to ground a MacBook.
I am pretty sure a bad switch mode power supply, can push out some nasty stuff.
Luck is a narrative concept that is not useful in reasoning.
For example in the article:
> As many people pointed out, Jenner’s success would have been impossible if she hadn’t been born white, healthy, rich, and famous
She could not have been born as anything but those things. Those things are what she is and removing them would not simply make her "unlucky", it would make her in to another person. Luck as used here in the article is just a way to differentiate and classify people, it does not have causal power.
Either you get rid of that device or you buy something like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+grounded+extention+cab...
The high frequency buzzing you feel in your hands as you place them on the computer when the incoming power is not a proper clean sinus wave is unpleasant. Stoping that buzzing would be a good reason to ground the adapter even if it not legally required.
The power adapter extension cord has a ground pin, you can use the extension cord if you want to ground the computer.
"A person who is not sad, is not unjustifiably rude to people."
As you are quick to point out, you might not feel the subjective felling. You telling me that could in a sense be seen as a confirmation that you have big blindspots and that you are therefore not unified.
Hope you discover the unconscious parts of your mind that is causing you pain so you can deal with the issue, God luck!
Seams like that is a statement that can not be made solely based on the stated connection. To me the initial thought that occurred when reading was something like:
"yeah well smoking is dangerous. People with more cognitive power are presumably better at reasoning themselves out of smoking; Given the fact that smoking is known to increase the risk of getting cancer."
If that description describes something that is a big factor in determining a persons smoking habit, smoking would not necessarily cause a cognitive decline as implied in the recommendation.