wisty

Or that chess is over because stockfish can easily beat any human player. Or that warehouses don't need workers now that we have forklifts.

Maaaybe.

On the other hand, proofs was the main thing that distinguished good mathemeticians. It was the way of sorting out who should be a math professor.

It's probably a bit of a blow for math professors. For almost everyone down the "food chain" though - who cares? I'd argue that mathematical thinking is still very useful, even if you offload the heavy lifting to power tools. Math teachers still need to exist. Math tests probably still make sense - you want to incentivise learning, and test to see who the brightest or most studious students are. Math will still be used for physics, economics, etc - no one actually cared about most of the new proofs anyway, it was just a fun tournament to pick math professors with a side effect of generating a bit new knowledge.

At some point, maybe humans don't need to make decisions. We can just sit in VR racks being fed and entertained by AI like we're in The Matrix or Wall-E, as they fill some age-old instruction to make the humans happy and healthy. But until then, humans still need to make decisions, and mathematical thinking makes us better at that.

Haha, had almost the exact thing trying to find a quote from Steins; Gate ("I keep seeing it, I keep seeing it"). Google AI was very "worried" about me.

A new hope had lots of effect that are basically cgi in impact. Muppets, painted backgrounds, lightsabres, the death star wireframe plans was cgi. The method of making fake pixels isn't the issue, good taste is, and modern cgi is just easy to make slop effects with.

Also compare lotr gollum (cgi but with a good actor and good script, with the actor in a motion suit on stage for actors to interact with) to Jar Jar (a tennis ball who actors couldn't interact with). Gollum is arguavly more cgi (both removing the actor and replacing them) but better.

Nah, politics in shows is great. It's like CGI. It can really make a show pop if it's well thought out, subtle, and feels realistic.

People complain about it when it seems to be used as an excuse for a lack other aspects of the show, or it makes everything seem unrealistic because they were more keen on putting it in than actually caring about whether it was realistic or at least made things feel realistic to the viewer.

The OG Jurassic Park had lots of politics and lots of CGI. No-one complained about it, because it was well done. If they had a jerkily animated raptor judo flipping a t-rex for no other reason than the director thought it would be cool to include then people would be saying the CGI was awful.

Implying it hadn't already fell apart in the Matt Smith era, where there was a season finale that made less sense than the end of Neo Genesis Evangelion (I think I'm talking about The Pandorica Opens, but it's honestly all a blur, and was at the time I watched it too). Moffat hyped up future episodes but could rarely deliver, RTD just hit you with a massive sucker punch on the 2nd or 3rd last episode and WOW.

Also implying that the wheels weren't kinda getting loose when 10ant said his final farewell at that (otherwise fairly underrated IMO) episode where the Master was hungry.

> Sometimes outsiders notice what's happening but over time academia has built up a complex web of lore that protects them psychologically

The word you're looking for is "triangulation" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(social_science)

As long as you can find [1] a few [2] citations [3] that kind of all point in the same kind of direction then you're good!

They're more like the winners of a pyramid scheme / MLM. You want everyone to see there's a winner so they all keep up the grind.

I can break it with zero skills. Tripod, camera, clear monitor in a dark room ... just take a real photo of a fake photo.

> I will suggest that trying to change someone's mind by presenting them with rational arguments is never going to work to persuade them they're wrong.

Were you persuaded of this by rational arguments?

Going from your size to 27 means putting on 10kg of muscle. That's a beef brisket. Half the guys in the gym don't have that much more musle than you.

Yeah really well muscled guy being BMI 27 is probably ok but by 30 it's not natural muscles that are making the scales go up.

> Many active gym people have pretty high BMIs but fairly low fat

I think this is greatly exhaggerated.

Yeah you can put on as much muscle as Arnold and have a FFMI of about 27 then maybe have a BMI of 34 if you have 20% body fat.

But a very gifted natty might cap out at maybe 24 with a BMI of 30 at 20% bodyfat. But let's be realistic. This is not "many active gym people". This is the guy winning the local strongman meet.

Yes a couple of years training for most people can add a couple of points to BMI but I think people exaggerate how much this is. Go look at a 20lb brisket at costco - you don't see people with that much extra muscle all that often.

I guess they use their chatlogs to fine tune.

Maybe users engage more with the flowery text? An accidental (or intentional) dark pattern would be that more tokens get used if you have to summarise. Or maybe it's just that many AI users like it (they like the AI to sound smart, or like to feel smart puzzling it out).

You can google "CPI price change graph by type good" to find which things have undergone real inflation vs real deflation. TVs, phones, toys, clothes, furniture, cars.

Everyone likes to say Homer Simpson lived like a king. He had a car that was so bad it would be illegal to sell new today, no cell phone, no netflix, no Uber eats, clothes were so expensive it was worth the SAHM fix them, pizza or Chinese takeaway were a luxury, not a lot of furniture.

People today eat so well that broke 30 year olds will order haute cuisine and say it's basically the same price as home cooking (OK it's roughly as big a rip off as maccas in Australia but still ... home cooking can be dirt cheap).

A better low effort contrarian comment - isn't it that early symptoms appear less often with people with a "reserve"?

Being mentally active (or physically active?) IIRC makes actual plaques both less likely, but also less detectable - a taxi driver can forget 90% of what they know and still not get diagnosed because they don't get lost on the way to the shops. Also they are often masters of small talk.

Freedom of association is kind of a mistake, as it encourages these bubbles to form.

The social model of diability is great in some ways (encouraging activism), but the idea that everything needs to be changed to be "designed for" people with disabilities has its downsides. Not all disabilities can be overcome, but to the extent that some can (at least partly), often IMO it's a good thing to have an expectation that most people can deal with the real world.

The cure for high prices is high prices. Selling out creates scalpers and sometimes even a speculative bubble. High prices means producers invest in new fabs (though it may take time).

Also AI seem pretty good at constructive proofs.

Most of the breakthroughs so far have been finding counter examples. They can just search tirelessly to find one. Finding a good algorithm (maybe even one faster than people assume is possible) seems the obvious next step for them (as opposed to more conceptual proofs e.g. existance or non-existence where they still aren't quite terrifyingly good).

The phrase "for all we know some undergrad might find a counter example" is the new "it works for n<100 so I don't see why it won't continue indefinitely".

PCB contamination passed on from their fish meal in 2004, not sure if it's still an issue.

Until you ask it to juatify your poor decisions, I bet.

Hot take, copyright law should be reformed to be more like patents.

Want the government / courts to stop your employees leaking source code? Escrow the code, and release it in 20 years.

The residuals on 20 year code is so close to zero that the costs vs benefits of longer IP protection is not in the public interest.

Which religion?

Christianity is arguanbly the irritating grit that created the pearl of modern science. A strict text that had to be taken literally ... this led to great intellectual progress in order reconcile it all. Bacon, Darwin ... lots of science was done by Christians.

Christianity isn't the only example. Islam and Judaism also have been heavy hitters. As have other cultures but I don't understand enough about them to comment.

> If you feel genuine responsibility for the people, then figure out a way to NOT fire them.

That kind of sounds like saying "if you're poor, make more money". It's not bad advice but odds are, they tried.

If a company can take a hit to its bottom line by being bloated and inefficient but saves jobs, is that the right thing to do?

Edit: I can see good arguments either way. The neoliberal idea that all waste should be eliminated seems almost communist / soviet IMO. The USSR grew like crazy by putting people into factories and working them as hard as possible, removing all waste. But with no slack they couldn't innovate and productivity growth stalled. Our productivity growth has also stalled. We outsource or privatise so much that everything is just a race to the bottom with no space to grow, and finding looopholes in metrics or rules is the way to get ahead (like soviet factories finding out that they can churn out crappier products that no one wants but it helps hit a quota).

OTOH boated orgs kinda suck.

AI pessimist view.

Even if AI gets smarter it will still be agreeable, and people will use it to more confidently reinforce thier stupider ideas, especially in areas where they lack the knowledge to know if they are right.

Even if this can be solved, technically, people won't want to use the model that says they are wrong, so they will choose the glib lies that reinforce their beliefs.

Freedown of speech forces people to think they may be wrong, but freedom of association lets people avoid this. AI is going to be internet hug box echo chambers at an unbelievable scale.

So Trump was right to call for tariffs?

> Right. So what you're saying

If you start a sentence with "so what you are saying", and then say something obviously silly ...

The argument would be that it's a large burden to have to write a report if you forage 10 mushrooms and toss one away.

Low volumes, higher fixed costs.

There's a great academic book called "Stupid Rules". Excessive rules (or KPIs - often rules in disguise) exist because we don't like authority.

Get the doctor to assess the nurse. Or the head nurses if you don't trust doctors. The nurses have managers, and if none of the doctors or head nurses can be trusted with a simple matter like assessing whether nurses are doing their jobs then you got bigger issues.

Oh no, the boss might play favourites if it's not an objective measure! Oh the injustice /s

But stupid rules or KPI also allow favourites. You can use an officious 30 point checklist and play favourites while ticking boxes. You can even rig "objective" data by controlling other factors (e.g. giving someone difficult customers do deal with).

Yeah, data driven would be nice, if you have good data. But data driven is a power tool. You don't measure SLOC or reward token use in software because of perverse incentives.

Both sides are wrong. Resusitation is more likely for a donar (if there is any bias).

OK, maybe a panel of neurologists looking at an ECG are going to be biased if you are stable but not reviving. But it's a panel of neurologists looking at an ECG. Mistakes are rare.

Before getting to the ICU, you've got the paramedics, triage nurse, and ED team, all of whom are also hypothetically going to be biased just as much to get you stabilised if you're a potential donar. Is the paramedic going to run a red light? Will the ED doctor work an hour past their shift when they can just read out the time and go home?

The info isn't on your license to tell the panel of neurologists. It's there so that the paramedics know to switch on the lights even if they think it might be a hopeless case.

I saw a slghtly odd youtube video by a small creator who thinks it was at least partly because the gods stopped talking to people.

No, hear me out.

Obviously they weren't real, but the Youtuber said (based on sources) people used to talk to the gods, like you might talk to a cat. And the gods spoke back (and we all know cat owners who insist the cat is replying).

As societies became more sophisticated, this stopped. Around the time of the collapse, rulers complained that the gods were silent. The usual interpretation is that the gods did not help, but what if they literally stopped "hearing" the god's replies?

You couldn't have a conversation with Zeus in the town square anymore without people saying you were nuts, unless you were a ruler. But the sophisticated, skeptical societies also became fractured and disloyal (especially when only their rulers were arguing with Zeus over why the peasants weren't taking them seriously), and social institutions (which were stuck in the past) couldn't keep up.

Now do maternal death rate. Like I said, a good place to have cancer but they aren't good at stuff that matters.

The US leans aggressive on tests and heroic end of life care. I doubt you really disagree (except maybe on whether you think it's the right call). That is where the money is, since the insurance company can be forced to pay. It's kind of good for the rest of the world though if the US wants to pay (in both money and other issues) to be early adoptors.

Read "When doctors die", the US is the total opposite - everything goes to the big ticket aggressive (and yes, modern and cutting edge) treatment where it's hitting diminishing returns. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179868/