522 karma · joined September 8, 2016
On the contrary, many old-timer traditional literature-focused e.g. Object Relational psychology schools are having a heyday having their insights shown to align with reality using all the bleeding-edge genetics and AI-powered data going around.
Every time this comes up, it feels like a fake controversy manufactured by people who are tech-savy enough to know how to find scientific papers on Google Scholar, but, curiously, have yet to discover the library, or the conference or... the college lecture hall. You know, places where people discuss literature?
Yes, psychology is just a literature, and... I'm not sure anyone seriously disagrees? Perhaps this is just the natural conclusion to having a field swamped by well-meaning but misplaced industry funds, laypeople can't cut through the bullshit on Google Scholar or find a librarian.
Who give a hoot we live in Descartes' demon and anything could be not real? The elephant is in the room. Id/ego/superego is clearly a thing, either that or you're not familiar with the field, or you're not living in shared reality! Malignant egalitarians who think everyone's opinions are just should really learn to push back harder on things that have, like, one in a trillion odds on being false.
The only thing up for debate are the definitions, functions, and boundaries of these three.
Maybe up to 33% of the world's population would find reading text triggers traumatic stress responses if I had to make an educated guess - not to diminish their experiences. But I'd imagine most people would just find the job boring or somewhat nauseating.
Should be trivial to significantly reduce human cost without completely removing their jobs anyway.
Having an overly-loving, overprotective mother does not allow the child to establish boundaries in the same way as an emotionally abusive mother. Perhaps these children would become codependents or have fake, overdone empathy.
There are two sides to the trauma coin! And with just two comments into the post, perhaps we've already seen both?
An extreme example of this might be the abusive Narcissist/Borderline couple dynamic. There's a handful of psychological literature from established researchers that speculate in these kinds of abusive couples, the victim and abuser entirely synchronize with each other using entraining. For example, the Narcissist uses repetitive, triggering speech patterns to brainwash the victim so the victim acts only the way the Narcissist thinks she'll act. On the other side, the Borderline might cause entraining by begging her partner to regulate her labile emotions. [1]
This entraining is also speculated to cause dissociation and amnesia, allowing the Narcissist to wipe clean and replace his victim's memory. [1]
Might have been an adaption in the distant past, but in my eyes most people in leadership are neurotics, and they don't like to regulate other peoples' emotions to any extent like the Cluster B's
[1] https://vaknin-talks.com/transcripts/Narcissist_Entrains_Cod...
Granted, this is mostly rural camping and small-city AirBNB all in the borders of the US. (Except for one time I stopped in DC for a month - strangely the only people that came to talk to me were the homeless and even they held decent conversations)
We're getting our adrenal glands pumping over Narcissistic obsessives dedicating every ruminating moment towards writing the next hit piece where they finally resolve their past scenarios, and they finally said all the right things to the wrong people, in an orgy of retraumatizing material. Just ignore them, go travel, say hi to people, change the world and all that stuff.
60% of this population cheat habitually. Dating is down 60%. First-time marriages end in divorce almost half of the time, and around 80% of the time to the next marriage. Lifelong singlehood is extrapolated to be the most common relationship option in the younger generation.
Most literature on the topic of the younger generation notes that sex has been robbed of all intimacy and is about meaningless and anonymous masturbation with another's body. Relationship skills, intimacy skills, emotional intelligence are in serious decline (Twenge, Campbell, others).
This is does not seem like the hallmarks of a generation with an increased capacity to generate and form relationships of any type! Could we have possibly got something wrong with this initiative?
The author seems to have forgotten to ask what the next step in human evolution thinks about their situation!
This also makes my blood boil, should we share so much in common somehow.
Race (still) has nothing to do with any of the GWAS studies, and this has been discussed in length since far before we started hooking up supercomputers to personality studies. These are discussing large differences in the chemical computers in our body that take possibly 100's of times or more longer to evolve than the amount of melanin in your skin or the shape of your nose would have evolved, and have evidently stayed that way for several 100's of thousands of years due to assortative mating.
So, given how literally every society ever tested all the way down to remote African tribes has all this exact same genetic diversity, would it not imply that this exact same distributed diversity is necessary for a healthy society to function?
Is it too difficult to imagine that certain groups of people, who we can't just use our eyes to pick out, are at greater risk from, say, macroeconomic shifts, which hampers their ability to be efficacious and extract favorable outcomes from the environment, has consequences even to certain groups that have it good?
Seems unbelievably great that we have all the data to prove all these emotionally dysregulated and life-hating schizoid racists wrong and be able to better labor distribution to improve individual and societal efficacy, but some anxieties are holding it back?
Here's an idea, you can easily prove the genetic determinism believers wrong by maintaining healthy boundaries and not internalizing other people's own self-destructive issues >:)
The studies were a little shocking at first, but really it's more surprising to me how much neurotic anxiety people have over the valuable insights in these studies. Insights that, by the way, were first discovered by cavemen in India 10,000 years ago and used it to build the first successful societies by distributing labor fairly based on these exact same brain/body types that just some guy found running a k-means on genomes and MMPI-2 answers. And these societies were pretty successful until they were taken over by people that didn't get it.
Who is even paying?
I noticed that when you searched for the company on Bing, you would actually see a bunch of these documents, despite nothing linking to it!
Of course I updated the robots.txt and yelled at leadership for the gaping security hole, but I was very surprised to see that Microsoft would send every link you crawled back to Bing to index. Distributed web crawling!
Like the other commenters have said, you have to check your state's laws to see if they can be registered, but I've met people in states that don't allow kei trucks and are just used as ATVs, and it's not like you're going to be fined for driving on back roads between your properties anyway. In Nebraska they're banned on highways, but it's not like you're going to take your 1800lb car which doesn't have airbags or any crash structure that only drives up to 65mph with a tailwind on any highways anyway.
If you're looking to buy one, check state laws and I recommend just eating the ~$2,000 markup to get one already with tags from a car dealer that sells these. Dealerships that sell RHD cars to people who drive for the Post Office will have these in stock and will be the easiest to deal with. It's not worth the risks and effort to do all the paperwork yourself IMO. If the car previously passed inspection in Japan, it's basically guaranteed to be fine because inspection in Japan is very good, they check for rust etc. Parts can either be cross-referenced to other cars (e.g. Honda Civic) or they will be expensive but available. You'll have to do all your own work, but they're extremely simple cars.
I use mine as a van camper, pretty cheap on gas if driven slowly.
Personally wouldn't recommend my approach however unless you are okay with doing some hardcore text manipulation and fuzzy math. It fails to produce text that matches up with the prompt 10% of the time and lots of other caveats with what to do with text that doesn't fit into the prompt.
I'm nearly 100% certain that the scripts are generated through prompt engineering, with a random prompt (e.g. tell a joke prompt, talk about a new restaurant prompt) being selected for the scene.
From what I can gather they first used the older, cheaper GPT-3 models, only upgrading to davinci-003 when it was profitable. The older GPT-3 models proved fine and didn't generate edgy content for the several months they were up and running.
But I think the change that broke the camels back was they added a "2006 Laugh Factory incident with edgy content" prompt and only tested it on the davinci-003 model - the new models having been wiped clean of antisocial training data, while the older smaller models still having contentious content encoded in the model.
So, davinci-003 did fine producing "politically aligned" text with the "edgy" prompt because it's "cleaned", but when the openai API for davinci went down the fallback was curie. The older "unclean" curie model combined with an edgy prompt inevitably caused what we saw here.
Eventually I convinced leadership to invest in basic security after conservative but still embarrassingly high 6-to-7-figure estimates of annual loss expectancy that only took a measly 5 figures a year to eliminate 75% of the risk, but the company only went around to it a long while after I left the place.
No judgement, I don't judge people on mental health. Unless someone is calling to make institutional changes that undermine the public's trust in it, then I will exert my right to judge these people's character.
Online communities are extremely disproportionally composed of people who fall into the Cluster B/emotionally dysregulated/CPTSD spectrum.
Internet addiction or "Internet Use Disorder" is nearly entirely composed of people in this camp. Same goes for trans people - this isn't an insult but an objective observation that these people need mental health help. To drive the point home - my ex-girlfriend worked at a mental institution for children and the majority all of them were trans and/or had BPD/Cluster B/CPTSD etc etc. At one point, all 5 children in their unit were trans!
Leadership should not use Internet communities as the north star for guiding the culture shifts of wider society, it will obviously lead to (to use a British understatement) social friction. We risk crumbling the institution of science and higher education due to catering to the wants of Cluster B, all just so these people can move on to the next subject to split into good and evil parts.
The focus should be on providing help to Cluster B, NOT about letting them take control of society and crumble all of our institutions to pieces over dissociative morality plays, making everyone's health worse in the process.
I was initially going to use Azure Cognitive Services and train it on a small amount of test data, after Whisper released for free I use Whisper + openai GPT-3 trained to fix the transcription errors by 1) taking a sample of transcripts by Whisper 2) fixing the errors and 3) fine-tuning GPT-3 by using the unfixed transcriptions as the prompt and the corrected transcripts as the result text.
Whisper with the --initial_prompt containing industry jargon plus training GPT-3 to fix the transcription errors should be nearly as accurate as using a custom-trained model in Azure Cognitive Services but at 5-10% of the cost. Biggest downside is the amount of labor to set that up, and the snail's pace of Whisper transcriptions.