The cost is about $18, one time, iirc.
514 karma · joined May 11, 2022
The cost is about $18, one time, iirc.
I believe it would be very difficult to tie my identity to my genome because of these steps.
Example:
Suppose you had one company doing $10 in sales a year, now it's doing $100 per year. 900% growth!
When you average 900% with the rest, it will skew the results wildly.
AI models are useful precisely because they can interpolate - make guesses that incorporate information from many examples.
And this interpolation is called "hallucination" only when it happens to be a wrong answer?
AIs are useful because many (most?) of those hallucinations happen to be useful.
An AI-powered rocker that plays soothing music till the baby sleeps would be great. People already use rockers, it's very accepted.
I would never have trusted a computer to be in charge of my infants. Even trusting another human adult is pretty tough already.
That doesn't make sense; so how are landlords surviving in your market then?
But Hersh's essay indicates there were last-minute changes to the detonation method. That adds risk, which could have manifested as failure of some detonations.
Related Paul Graham essay, "Keep your identity small": http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
After over a decade of regular caffeine use, I stopped it entirely last year. The benefits were tremendous. The "decaf" subreddit is full of people with similar experiences.
When people upvote jokes, the high-value expertise people freely share here gets drowned out, and will eventually disappear.
You can, of course, hire the same people back (assuming they are still willing to work there).
Academics solve long-term problems. They do not need to chase profits, so they can tackle bigger ideas. The risk is higher, but the rewards to humanity as a whole can be far greater - just less immediate.
Note that there is a significant amount of "academia" that happens inside large tech co's, such as Google / Facebook / Microsoft, just as Bell Labs did in yesteryear.
Biology is different. Sure, at a molecule level, you can make definite conclusions. "This drug binds to that receptor."
But the kind of biology that is immediately useful to humans - where it touches on psychology or sociology - is too complex to get 100% right. So how do you do 'science' in these fields?
The answer is that you make up some cohesive theory based on existing research and do studies in that direction. You try to prove yourself right.
And it works! Theories that come out of this sort of research can turn out to be 100% true. Or 90% true - where they are wrong under some conditions, but still very useful. Or they can be complete bunk - not predictive, and a waste of time.
When anyone presents a cohesive theory of a complex system, they are probably not 100% right. Doesn't make them entirely wrong, though, and certainly not useless.
Are there any quantitative studies on this topic? It would be a stronger argument if a clear trend was observable over many countries.
https://www.coursera.org/specializations/deep-learning
The lectures take you through each major paper, then you implement the paper in the homework. Much faster than reading the paper yourself.
There's this conveyer-belt view of life: we are supposed to go directly from birth to school to job to kids to bigger job to death. Some people really do live that. Most people don't.
But we're expected to fit that mold, so anyone who's stepped off the belt will usually keep quiet about it. So it's easy to start believing that the only valid life is some linear path.
Still. Unemployment is stress and uncertainty. But bad job markets aren't forever. Good luck with finding a job, or managing to enjoy the interim.
Nyanpasu.
But it will help if you enjoy research culture. The location is rather isolated and you will probably be friends / co-workers with people doing research. (I say this because not everyone likes being around PhDs; I've met several people in software who disdain academics.)
Many people today seem to feel that Taiwan and Ukraine are interests worth using military force to defend. I do wonder how well that support would hold up if either of those potential wars becomes reality.
It presents a realistic vision of AI-driven therapy, and leaves it up to the player to determine what their views on the topic are.
Being unable to say "no" is also a great way to burn out in the first place. The advice of "just slack off" is often given in cases like these, but... if the person could do that, would they be burned out in the first place?