But if we crack down on all of them, we will deny them the opportunity to work in the “legitimate” economy and push them toward criminality. A full ban, then, may well make the problems worse.
But if you return fire with fire, the only thing that'll burn is our reputation. The troll who triggered you into flashing your teeth won't face any consequences, but every spectator who saw it will judge you.
And the other question is if you tie emotion to the the conscious experience of emotion, that is you equate you conflate emotions with feelings. Well, then you're not studying emotions, you're studying consciousness.
I'm so incredibly tired of seeing low-effort AI-designed web pages. I basically bounce off any new product immediately when I see it (never get a chance to judge the product itself). Lots of thin lines, glowy styles, inconsistent fonts, lots of monospace.
But I don't think we should judge content based on the tool that made it. Um I think we should judge it based on the content, the point of view, the person behind the content.
Um so if you say okay well we're going to instead of just running this model once we're going to run it five times and take the best of the five responses or like ask a judge which one it thinks is best then you can get much higher scores than that model. And so it's really easy to make something that looks a lot better on paper but is actually not better once you control for the amount of test time compute.
The phrase "your feelings are valid" does not invite curiosity or deeper self-understanding, which is the point of psychotherapy. It is the mirror image of "stop whining and get a grip." One sounds warm and one sounds harsh, but neither deepens self-awareness.
Users can't see the code, so UI is the only way for them to judge the quality of the app. If UI looks good, that means developers had time to polish it, which means that they probably spent a comparable amount of time to iron out the code.
they started from a place of corporate governance where they were looking out for fraud. And so so risk mitigation rather than shareholder interest. And so when you come at it from that perspective, you're like, there should be rules and people should adhere to the rules and when people get outside of the rules, that's bad.
all of these frictions on um the political type decisions that we are accustomed to only trusting human you know, only having humans for like legislation and being a judge, being a jury or all the licensing thing that keeps certain professions human that all strikes me as transitional, right?
And so you just have to first realize that chips exist in China. They manufacture 60% of the world's mainstream chips, maybe more. It's a very large industry for them. They have some of the world's greatest computer scientists.
but the thing about AI is that, you know, all of many of these things we were talking about how important they were and how valuable were and trying to persuade people of the importance of them. Yes, even the internet. That may sound surprising, but there were people who would weren't thinking that was important. Um but AI, there's kind of no argument about how important it is. People can't can I mean, you cannot put blinkers on to deny the importance of this thing.
Given the focus in Coolidge, Shadwick, and Payton on the fundamental role of warrants in inserting a judicial check on the executive, it seems out of place to say that this can be satisfied by the executive checking itself.
Could a book be more up my alley? The way he unpacks his feelings about giftedness, overachieving, language, disability, and difference really spoke to me.
When someone is asked to reflect on their own life, they draw on a wide range of experiences. When people are asked about “the world”, they recall a very small number of recent events (the availability bias).
We don't really have much evolved experience in evaluating postal efficiency, do we? Okay, we have quart of a million half a million years of evolved experience in deciding who to like and trust because for most of our evolutionary, you know, existence, that was one of the most fi five most important questions to get right.
They have a general sense which is also by the way extremely robust in people like whatever it is the human value function whatever the human value function is with a few exceptions around addiction it's actually very very robust
the reason that I think this is kind of tricky is quite subtle. And it's the fact that anytime you use an LLM to assign a reward, those LLMs are giant things with billions of parameters and they're gameable.
You can shortcut like hard feelings because now you can just watch TikTok instead of actually dealing with the very difficult emotion or tension that you had with a colleague or with your partner or with your children.
we often also have this mental model of like oh our managers are a judge and they're going to judge me on whether or not I got it I did well I should get a promotion I should be fired so there's this sometimes fear that people have but I think in the very best relationships the manager is like a guide
And I spoke with my father, who had been a high judge in Germany. What does the law actually say? And the law says if you plan a crime and then maybe when you commit it, you are under the influence, it does not diminish your responsibility.
in management uh like a CEO is is being fired when results are bad, which I think is fundamental that's multiple levels of wrong. Um, but like the way to judge a CEO is like out of what opportunity did you carve what company?
Many software investors eschew hard tech startups because of their capital intensity, but it’s hard to deny that huge returns are possible in hard tech: just consider SpaceX.
The bar I typically suggest is that the people manager doesn't need to have the most technical depth on the team, but they need enough depth that they can follow most discussions without slowing them down, understand who's correct in most debates without needing to rely on trust, and generally stay oriented easily.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.