yosame

Scott absolutely analyses topics in bad faith, particularly when it comes to politics or movements/people he personally supports. Here's one where he essentially says 'no study is ever fully representative, therefore my friends twitter polls are exactly as good evidence as a scientific study':

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fact-of...

As far as I can tell, Sam did something? to get fired by the board, who are meant to be driven by non-profit ideals instead of corporate profits (probably from Sam pushing profit over safety, but there's no real way to know). From that, basically the whole company threatened to quit and move to Microsoft, showing the board that their power is purely ornamental. To retain any sort of power or say over decision making whatsoever, the board made concessions and got Sam back.

Really it just shows the whole non-profit arm of the company was even more of a lie then it appeared.

Well no, SSRIs (essentially) work by becoming tolerant to their effects, which takes 3 weeks to 3 months. It's not a conspiracy, it's just how they work.

They're a preferred treatment because they're usually effective and they're far safer than other medication classes for depression.

Run it in Australia, it's schedule was lowered so you can actually run studies on it. Here's one happening right now:

https://www.monash.edu/medicine/scs/clinical-psychedelic-lab...

That would be because Stratteta is a second-line treatment that's less effective and has more negative side effects than Adderall, and Bupropion and Modafinil have a very weak body of evidence supporting their use for ADHD. Bupropion and Modafinil are still stimulants, you might as well give a patient a smaller dose of Adderall for the same effect.

As for therapy, it's not really a great solution for ADHD. It can certainly help, but it's not going to give you the internal drive to do boring things that you were born without. In my experience, therapists also don't know how to treat ADHD, it's not really in their wheelhouse.

Surely they'll find a use case before the sun burns out!

Same with Instagram Reels, and they're also fairly popular.

The PBS won't cover the drug portion of the treatment at least until there's good quality stage 3 clinical trials that support it's use. Even then, given the need for a long therapy session next to the drug, they'll likely have to create a special access scheme to cover both.

I'd say it's very unlikely that these treatments will ever be government subsidied for anything except very treatment resistant depression/PTSD (for psilocybin/MDMA respectively).

Why would you bother staking if you didn't expect a profit?

Spontaneous mutations mean that a virus can become more infectious by bad luck alone. We were unlucky.

Next you'll be telling me warfarin can be used for something other than killing rats!

100% agree with the Enid Blyton take. I loved Blyton's books as a kid, to the point I actually developed a British-esque accent from reading them so much (I'm Australian). But if I had children, I would not read those books to them as they are. They're full of racist, sexist and generally outdated language, and were written by someone who was considered overly conservative for the 1930s!!

As long as the original books exist somewhere, I don't really think it matters if we give a cleaned up version to modern kids.

Well a point of evidence that disputes this: homosexual men have larger penis sizes on average than heterosexual men [1].This is the opposite of what you'd expect if EDC's are decreasing testosterone and increasing homosexuality.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10410197/

They've put in safety features to make sure it won't be transphobic / break the Twitch TOS, and it'll be back after the two week ban.

Calling vaccines a genetic therapy is in bad faith as well.

There's definitely a decent body of evidence to suggest ADHD is associated with emotional dysregulation, but I'd be surprised if that explanation turned out to correct.

ADHD isn't simply a lack of dopamine, but a dysfunction in dopamine (and noradrenaline) regulation. It can involve too much dopamine (like with hyperfocus), and not enough dopamine in different loci. This isn't even mentioning the non-dopamine/noradrenaline understandings of the pathophysiology that are still arising with further study.

Some researchers actually believe ADHD is a circadian rhythm disorder [1], so there might be some merit in this.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12402-018-0271-z

Just because stable diffusion can be used to violate copyright doesn't mean it only does.

Or they can do a different job?

Look to be fair, a majority of a drug's time under patent will be during development, when they can't make any revenue. It's even been argued that the high cost of new medication is (partially) because they only have a short period of time to actually sell it while under patent (it takes roughly 8-15 years to bring a drug to market).

I personally believe that while these abuses of the system absolutely should be accounted for, reducing the period of patent to 10 years won't help anything.

Well ChatGPT at least does all the time, it's just that those concepts are factually incorrect

That's genuinely the best solution I've heard for this issue so far.

It'd stop buisnesses from replacing artists with models wholesale, but it would allow people to keep using them, and allow the companies making the models to make money selling access to the models.

You can use a spoon to kill someone if you're motivated enough, but that doesn't make a spoon a killing weapon.

Just because AI art models can reproduce copyright (if you try hard enough), doesn't mean that it's a copyright stealing machine.

But that's because the movie is still recognisable. Using an algorithm doesn't automatically remove copyright, but if the algorithm transforms the data to a point where it can't be recognised as the original work, then it isn't breaking copyright.

I guess the question is, what exactly is "true learning" and why is that impossible for a machine to achieve?

Keep in mind, we don't know how humans learn either (on a neurological level). It might end up being that we stumbled onto the same general idea, using matrices and linear algebra instead of neurones, synapses and neurotransmitters.

That article is about UV light, not bleach?

The reason why Wikipedia is such a great first stop for knowledge is because it has citations you can follow.

With ChatGTP you have to take the information on pure trust, and the information it gives is not at a level you can trust yet.

Covid was mutating, that's why the advice kept changing. Vaccines were 80% effective, than immune escape happened and the vaccines got less effective. At the same time, covid was getting better at spreading, which is why 2 weeks to flatten the curve wasn't enough.

It's not a bad thing for experts to change their opinion as new evidence comes out.

You literally just made the wild leap of logic the parent comment was talking about.

The mRNA vaccines have a modified spike protein, that is non functional compared to natural infection. On top of that, cells naturally infected with covid also express the spike protein [1], and would do so in far greater amounts than what would be caused by the vaccine.

People's different genetic dispositions will change their immune response, and that might maybe change how they respond to the vaccine as opposed to the virus. But there's no way of knowing which way you will fall, and our current evidence suggests that getting the vaccine is probably always the safer alternative.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8941975/

I like a lot of Scott 's writings, but this is a bad habit of his. If there's a point that contradicts his own, he'll pretend to address it while actually just skipping over it/downplay it's relevance.