reader5000

I read an article a while ago about how a lot of silicon valley people disallow their kids internet access. It makes sense to me.

Yes, not wanting your children to develop sexual relationships with computer screens is draconian.

What teenagers are learning from online porn is simply that the behavior of "shutting myself alone in my room with a computer" leads to (simulated) sexual satisfaction. This is in contrast to every generation before them which learned that the behavior of "being sociable / gaining status in society" leads to (non-simulated) sexual satisfaction. So a million young people learning to shut themselves away from the outside world, I wonder how that's going to work out for the West? I say West, because China bans porn.

I think the human brain is capable of only grasping so much abstraction. I'm sure every genius working in the deepest areas of advanced mathematics has heard of deep learning. If there was some amazing concept from their field directly applicable to deep learning we would have heard about it by now.

The man was a hero.

How is this not illegal?

This is true of literally every celebrity.

I wonder what the data is on hitting 1000 subs from scratch. I can see it taking 6+ months and if you're putting out daily or weekly content thats a lot of unpaid labor till you get some of that sweet ~$1 per 1000 views. But yeah I think most tubers monetize through patreon/merchandise/non-yt ads so this might not affect things too much.

Third party supported content will always be adversarial to both consumer and creator. People really need to figure out microtransactions / frictionless payments so that creators can be directly supported by consumers for reasonable cost to consumer.

For me as a consumer the main value youtube provides is its recommendation system for discovering [long-tail] content. Why not have a "show me more videos like this" button for paying subscribers out of which the video creator gets 10c or something.

Youtube is slowly becoming just another shitty mega broadcast outlet like NBC or netflix producing corporate-sanctioned mainstream content of little relevance to anyone.

Somebody has to find a way to make longtail content sustainable. The fact that people do sign up to pay into Patreon or pay to Twitchers demonstrates that this is possible.

Corporate involvement in content creation is poisonous.

Please explain how this comment was unsubstantive and baity.

Number of humans that could put together a Ferrari from parts: ~10000?

Number of humans that can beat Stockfish: 0

The content produced by millions of unpaid people like this comment is way more interesting than the boilerplate content produced by paid people written to conform to a particular zine's "style". The very idea of "lets pay a bunch of people to write about shit that everybody already knows about" is absurd.

Internet and digital stimulation has displaced 'real life'.

Constant digital stimulation is cognitively infantilizing, rendering adult conversation dead.

"Why some people are poor" is not as conclusively understood as the curvature of the earth.

Simply that it was odd that Chomsky continued the conversation when he didnt want to actually explain his point of view. His point that "why some people are poor" is well settled science answerable with a literature review is not being honest either.

The purpose of an argument is to show why something is true. Saying an 'expert' believes something is true does not show why it is true nor that it is true. Deferring to Wiles is just ceasing to argue.

"These 'experts' agree with me" is not an argument. Indeed, clearly Chomsky did not want to engage the argument so ceasing responding would have been logical.

I mean if you're just going to give non-argumentative question-begging, why even respond? I think Chomsky was wasting Chomsky's time more than the kid.

I feel that "free speech" isn't a right as much as censoring speech is an active crime; you are forcefully prohibiting the processing of information. It's like forcing lobotomies on people.

Doesnt any standard IVF procedure in the US involve "embryo selection"?

Whats the difference between embryo selection and Harvard undergraduate class selection?

So how do we distinguish between ideas that "win" in the bazaar of ideas, and ideas that "disrupt" the bazaar of ideas?

Combinatorics is significantly more difficult than the level of calculus required to understand "machine learning" (i.e. gradient descent).

Also generating functions are kind of combinatorics + calculus.

We don't have a world in which TV/internet saturation never existed, so it's really hard to determine who is right.

Yes, no patience, no attention span, incapable of basic interaction with another human.

I'm in restaurants and I notice kids just old enough to hold a phone spending the entire meal staring at it. Theres no way thats remotely healthy for brain development.

Sure it does. If I intentionally doctor data then it is low quality.

Data is shitty if it's intentionally adversarial, otherwise it's fine. Problem solved.

It's really an outdated concern anyway since most AIs run in realtime and are fed data direct from clickstreams / other realtime pipelines. It's unclear what a 'biased' data source means.

This is not like a "fundamental" AI problem; just dont feed the AI shitty data.