AI is clearly in the right track regarding performance and the speed of progress. Is it human level in every task? Not really. It clearly has room to grow. Is it super human in many tasks? I think so. Just learn how to use it. Peace.
387 karma · joined October 29, 2016
AI is clearly in the right track regarding performance and the speed of progress. Is it human level in every task? Not really. It clearly has room to grow. Is it super human in many tasks? I think so. Just learn how to use it. Peace.
One study with 500 people doesn't prove a point.
Of the top of my head I know at least one other study where mid-life lifestyle intervention didn't reduce mortality (it slightly increased it in a statistically non-significant manner). 21 yrs follow up. ~3000 people. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.0...
1) The best diet studies where people were asked to follow Mediterranean diet only managed to lower CVD and/or mortality by 10s of % points. This is a very poor outcome. At best adds a few years to someone's lifespan. At best. The average Mediterranean dieter fares a lot worse. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26528631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368053 Don't get me started about Keto, Vegan etc. Those have even less convincing evidence regarding hard outcomes (e.g. MACE, Cancer etc) though our opinion might change if they ever get tested in large scale.
2) Exercise is even worse. It has virtually zero effect on CVD outcomes, mortality outcomes in trials where participants were asked to change their behaviors. "Exercise did not reduce all-cause mortality and incident CVD in older adults or in people with chronic conditions, based on RCTs comprising ∼50,000 participants" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10512580439138189...
It's a myth that diet and exercise will save you from Cancer or CVD. There's virtually zero evidence for that, when you look at things from intervention point of view -- intervention evidence is the only evidence acceptable in science. The rest is pseudo-science or proto-science.
Btw, I believe weight loss is the best thing you can do to live longer (that is if you're overweight or obese). But diets still universally fail. E.g. bariatric surgery probably works, maybe drugs will be shown to work (Tirzepatide/Semaglutide I'm looking at you). A publication on how 90% of obese dieters fail after 1-2 yrs on the same diet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764193/
This list was compiled in 2009 before I took a full time job in an algorithmic trading company, but it's still relevant :) If anything ML is more relevant than ever in trading, except perhaps Deep Neural Nets, Transformers, Large Language Models etc are the norm today.
------------
update: This video refers to another trigonometric proof that doesn't rely on sin^2 + cos^1 = 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6j2nZKwf20
I would write a more modest abstract for this work. Just my $0.02.
Until the authors' work is submitted to a journal and reviewed, it's hard to say everything claimed here is definitely correct & new.
Update: Nice video on the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQD6lDwFmCc I like what they did :) Seems legit to me.
Btw, law of sines can be proven independently of pythagoras. So using that as a step is ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_sines
Most observational studies simply report spurious correlations, and cannot be trusted --- especially when "reverse causality" is a strong possibility. That is people who are healthier and fitter tend to exercise more, therefore they experience less disease, death etc.
Only by taking sedentary individuals, and coaching them to exercise significantly more, and comparing with a control group, you can be sure of the causal benefits.
Exercise did not reduce all-cause mortality and incident CVD in older adults or in people with chronic conditions, based on RCTs comprising ∼50,000 participants
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10512580439138189...
The average sedentary HN reader, take comfort! Being a gym rat is good for you. Forcing yourself to become a gym rat from being sedentary has unclear benefits regarding hard outcomes.
Looks like EU will be doing the same with AI, and risk locking these countries out of the benefits of AI revolution.
As an addendum, I want to say a well designed whitening matrix + IIR filter can replace a Kalman filter, again depending on the application. Just makes things easier to understand, debug etc. Works if your vector is somehow decomposable into roughly independent scalars.
> So it’s exactly like the US.
Here's a bit of news for you. "China’s Global 500 companies are bigger than ever—and mostly state-owned" - Fortune https://fortune.com/2015/07/22/china-global-500-government-o...
Here's top 500 companies in USA. Do you know how many of them are state owned? I think that number is zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S%26P_500_companies
Are chinese tech companies really state owned? Well they're mostly funded by the government based on this news article (venture capital), so they're at least in part state owned. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/technology/in-china-tech-is...
"An executive at a Chinese search engine recently summed up the new dynamic: We're entering an era in which we'll be fused together. It might be that there will be a request to establish a Party committee within your company, or that you should let state investors take a stake, you know, as a form of mixed ownership. If you think clearly about this, you really can resonate together with the state."
Us government spending and support compared to these effort is miniscule. Yes, they have some green energy initiatives (e.g. Tesla, Solar City benefited from those). But in the big scheme of things, us public investment in tech is about zero.
Learn some capitalism, my friend :) Remember Chinese (state owned and controlled) capitalism isn't what we call capitalism around here. Chinese capitalism is a bit like "chinese democracy". Not quite the real thing :)
>> China: aiming to invade Taiwan
> China hasn’t invaded anyone for decades. US had.
Not every invasion is wrong. The world needs a police, otherwise bad guys create chaos. China? They think Taiwan belongs to them. Which is crazy if you ask 26M Taiwanese.
"60 mins" from 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxjwhk1ktNw
Every tech company in China is in part owned or supported by the chinese government. Hard to talk about "independent tech". They're more like "national tech".
Today and the next 50 years in tech is being defined by the competition between the two superpowers. Their national objectives differ vastly. China: aiming to invade Taiwan; proving everyone that their totalitarian system is competitive with democracy; proving that they can lead the world. US aiming to stay a leader; maintaining the global stability; maintaining the economic & military supremacy. Both economies are trying to slowly decouple from each other, gain independence, and prove their superiority. This is the story of our ages.
Now, your question is I feel completely wrong. Meaning ever since I joined the work force (2004), I always had 5-7 interviews.
But that aside, the real deal these days is an effort to unbias the hiring process. Meaning put less weight on the resume. Put more weight on the 0.5-1 day you spend with the candidate during the interview process.
Obviously, you need to ask the right kind of questions to measure technical competence. So the Q&A is also heavily skewed towards job-required skills & knowledge (vs puzzles and such).
In the Phase I trial below, injecting telomerase and klotho AV vectors into CNS/brain was safe and it improved cognitive scores of 5 dementia patients after 1 yr follow up.
Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i__oZyxgLC0
Paper: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/patrick-e-sewell-md-a994774_g...
This space will hopefully get very big. Mice lifespans were extended 25-40% (massive!) through similar techniques. See Dr George Church Gene Therapy for more.
"Meaningful Social Interactions — the back and forth comments between friends that Facebook optimizes for."
How can you argue against this? Isn't this obvious? Isn't this what genetics is all about --- parents' genes being passed to offspring?
You're either blinded by your ideology... or maybe don't understand biology.
Anything related to income will be (statistically speaking) associated with intelligence and other personal traits (perseverance etc). Any of this will be obviously correlated with your kid's SAT --- it's called genetics.
Any other, more sensible data to look at?
How do I know? I'm one of those students who didn't have stellar high school grades, but I excelled in subject exams --- those subjects were genuinely interesting to me (math, science). I didn't find the rest of high school interesting, and I wasn't a nerd nerd studying anything my parents told me to study. I turned out "ok" (graduated as the top my class in college, then had a successful career in top tech companies). Without that final exam that gave me the opportunity, I probably wouldn't be typing this message today.
I'm not even counted as "diverse" (because I'm not black or hispanic) despite coming from a muslim family and middle eastern background. I can only select "white", though I'm not really white (european).
Today's admission debates and anti-racist treatments are wrong at so many levels, I don't know where to start.