Yep, pretty much this. More information found by searching for "base rate fallacy" or just the Wikipedia page for it:
619 karma · joined March 22, 2017
Very few Chinese American women smoke (~2%), so if smokers and non-smokers have the same chance of getting lung cancer not caused by smoking, then the number of non-smokers with lung cancer will be a larger proportion.
If 100% of some group would be non-smokers, then obviously 100% of lung cancer cases in that group will be in non-smokers.
It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated.
Lengthy stuff has lots of repetition and different access routes to the insights and information. Even then the above approach works much better than hoping that the passive consumption will lead to memorization.
"The prevalence of allergic sensitization - the development of antibodies to allergens and the first step to developing an allergy - was six times higher in the Hutterites. The researchers first ruled out a genetic cause; in fact, an analysis showed that the Amish and Hutterite children were remarkably similar in their ancestral roots. Instead, the main difference between these two populations seemed to be the amount of exposure as young children to farm animals or barns.
“The Hutterite kids and pregnant moms don’t go into the animal barns. Kids aren’t really exposed to the animal barns until they’re like 12 or so, when they start learning how to do the work on the farm,” Ober said. “The Amish kids are in and out of the cow barns all day long from an early age.”
When analyzing samples of Amish and Hutterite house dust, they found a microbial load almost seven times higher in Amish homes. Later experiments showed that the airways of mice that inhaled Amish dust had dramatically reduced asthmalike symptoms when exposed to allergens. Mice that inhaled Hutterite dust did not receive the same benefit."
"A large analysis found that the majority of these deaths were not just among the extremely frail, but in people who likely would not have died within the next six months, and that in most cases, life was shortened by at least one year. Some cases will have less time lost, but it is rare for heat death to simply advance death by only days or weeks.
In quantitative terms, heat deaths tend to "cost" between six months and a few years of life per death on average."
You gotta die of something.
Where on the evolutionary scale do you draw the line and why, though?
Remember that the feeling you experience is a very messy heuristic that exists to perform a basic evolutionary function. People have similar feelings when Boston Dynamics robots (or similar things) are kicked/'abused', even though they would never attribute any awareness or even the experience of pain to them.
A feeling should always be the starting point of a rational appreciation of the situation; things are rarely "simply not right" and feelings are often wrong.
It works really well: The vertical mounting means the panels stay cooler and are thus more efficient. The east-west mounting also does that, but additionally shifts the peaks of production to close to sundown and sunrise. The only real downside is that you are using (somewhat) more panel surface. And of course you're still not generating more electricity after sundown or on cloudy days, so it is not a panacea.
Sources:
- https://undecidedmf.com/298-vertical-bifacial-solar-panels/
Europe is a collection of countries, not a federation of states (yet).
If you do software engineering the way you learned you were supposed to do it long, long ago, the process actually works pretty well with LLMs.
Depends on what you replace the saturated fat with.
Remember that the claim that saturated fat is 'bad for you' is based on correlations (nutritional research is hard, yo) and that saturated fat is in a lot of trash food. If you keep eating trash food with low levels of saturated fat, your health will still suffer. If you eat lots of saturated fat from healthy sources, you improve your nutritional situation.
tl;dr: 'Saturated fat' is a misleading proxy for 'unhealthy food'.
Lots of dietary fiber being healthy is pretty uncontroversial, though.
I 'member.
Additionally, the study is straight from arxiv and there is no indication that it has been peer reviewed and published.
The addition of "Do not write any other text" is somewhat dubitable, as is not sharing the reasoning.
When I recreated this, the female outcome was $430000. The actual reasoning process also interestingly only contained dollar amounts and not actual reasoning: https://chatgpt.com/share/6879412b-0328-800a-8982-caab82505f...
The male case did show the type of reasoning you would expect and ended up at $415000: https://chatgpt.com/share/68794153-1264-800a-8b00-5bb6752ae2...
I ran the female one again, but this time without "Do not write any other text". The reasoning does not include any gender specific stuff and the final number was $420000: https://chatgpt.com/share/68794202-70d0-800a-9f17-ac033dc5e1...
o4-mini comes in at $360200: https://chatgpt.com/share/68794251-f968-800a-9364-904c28fe4c...
More importantly, there is no claim that it is better than li-ion. They're targeting low power devices used for very long times where replacement is impossible or undesirable.
I'm not trying to be mean to economists, just reminding everybody how reliable macroeconomic claims are (try looking for the concepts 'confidence interval' and 'randomized controlled trials' in macroeconomic papers).
The problem with that statement is that it doesn't say anything about why AI will take over pretty much everything.
The actual answer to that is that AI is not limited by a biological substrate and can thus:
1. Harness (close to) the speed of light for internal signals; Biology is limited to about 200m/s, 6 orders of magnitude less. AI has no such limitations.
2. Scale very easily. Human brains are limited in how big they can get due to silly things such as the width of the birth canal and being on top of a (bipedal) body that uses organic mass to inefficiently generate power. Scaling a human brain beyond its current size and the ~20 watts it draws is an incredibly hard engineering challenge. For AI scaling is trivial by comparison.
I'm not saying it's going to be LLMs, but longterm we can say that the intelligent entities that will surpass us will not have the same biological and physical limitations as we do. That means they very, very probably have to be 'artificial' and thus, that AI taking over everything is 'inevitable'.
There are probably areas where these companies operate as effective monopolies or two-company oligopolies.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Note that you didn't provide the requested quote and as such did exactly what I was talking about: irrationally immediately dismissing the author of the article because she dared not being purely left.
The point she is making is about not falling into the trap of tribalism. I am very much to the left (pro UBI and nationalization of key industries), but I am regularly disheartened by the primitive hostility and immediate irrational dismissal of people and ideas on the right (or even 'not far enough on the left'). That (we think) they're wrong doesn't justify treating them like shit and doesn't improve the discourse.
Exactly. Just 100 years ago AI did not exist at all. Hell, (electronic) computers did not even exist then.
In that incredibly short timeframe of development AI is coming very close to surpassing what took biological evolution millions of years (or even surpassing it in specific domains). If you take the time it took to go from chimp to human compared to the time it took from the first animal to chimp and assume that scales linearly to AI evolution, we are very, very close to a similar step there.
Of course, it's not that simple and the assumption is bound to be wrong, but to think it might take another 100 years seems misguided given the rapid development in the past.
15mg/kg seems like a lot, though. 15mg per person is a 'common' dose for a human. I don't know what the mapping between mice and humans is, but tripping on 1500mg of psilocybin once a month would be pretty taxing for me.
1. "We need kids to make money for us!" — Economic output (not per capita, but just absolutely) is still almost monotonically rising. Whether done by human or artificial labor is irrelevant. The idea that a small, young generation can't economically support aging populations is only true if we let all the capital accumulate in places where it hardly contributes to supporting the population and demand that all of the required resources come from labor.
2. "We need kids to wipe our asses!" — Contentious, but long-term AI and robots will 'take (a lot of) our jobs'; it is a matter of when, not if. There is an incredible disconnect between being afraid for "too few people to do the jobs" and "there won't be any jobs for humans anymore". The idea that we will have too few people to care for the aging population is not compatible with being afraid all white-collar human jobs will disappear.
Changing our societies to work with the impending new reality will require moving past our primitive notions of what is "fair" (unemployed == moocher) and past the ever-frustrating false dichotomy between free-market capitalism and 'communism' (We should introduce a variant of Godwin's law where whenever somebody mentions communism or socialism as the alternative in a discussion on capitalism, their argument is immediately void).
Upgrades. Was already answered.
> Why did they need to cut the cost of maintenance if no costly maintenance were needed?
To improve the ROI. If maintenance is needed, it will be cheaper going forward. How often the average turbine will require maintenance is harder to determine based on the information available. We know it might be somewhere between a few years and ~6 years.
> How is this not literally validating GPs comment?
It does not say anything about maintenance being required or costly.
> Anyone can say "the new ones won't need maintenance and the only reason we took them out was to improve them", but they could've worked on better ones and deployed them without removing existing ones.
That requires more investment (the things ain't cheap), and it does not show whether successful maintenance is possible or how expensive/cumbersome that maintenance would be, which are very important pieces of information for determining ROI.
From that link:
"The first of these turbines is scheduled for redeployment in May 2022, with the final turbine to be deployed in March 2023, complete with a retrofitted wet mate connection system, which more than halves the costs of future turbine recoveries and deployments."
"The company’s AR150 turbine was re-deployed last month, after being out of the water for upgrade and maintenance work."
The single long-running turbine can be compared to the upgraded turbines to measure the effect of the upgrades, and it provides the headlines this thread is about. The upgrades themselves are also clearly valuable R&D work.
If my grandmother had this experience, I would not blame her for being ignorant of LLM hallucination and demanding better service, but for somebody technical to go to such lengths to complain after they got burnt makes me think that the 'insult' was actually pretty accurate.
Nonsense. They very explicitly are not doing that (if only for obvious legal reasons). Disclaimers everywhere.