CannonSlugs

Trust me, us Europeans are not exempt from the "everyone should see a psychologist" trope blasting social media the last decade. We are not blind to every Hollywood actor having a personal therapist either.

I think the main difference (speaking as a northern European) is that when you Americans speak of therapy you seem to mean the stereotypical "talk therapy" where as basically every therapy here is cognitive behavioral therapy.

Can cognitive behavioral therapy help someone who has a bit of existential dread about his tech job? Maybe. I don't think it's silly on it's face though to say "really?" if the poster's life is in order otherwise.

Geely acquired Volvo Cars around 2010, and there is certainly not much wrong with modern Volvos (aside for the regular stuff that is wrong with all modern vehicles).

Given Geely's various acquisitions, it makes sense that their cars would benefit from shared technologies so I wouldn't expect their vehicles to be much worse than westerns.

Seems like the main problem if you dislike China taking over the industry is that the automobile companies keep voluntarily selling their brands to them.

I don't mind trying a "better reddit", but seeing it's a team up with the reddit co-founder, what will set it apart?

There is something about modern reddit that irks me, at the same time I'm not sure if it really was better in the past if you strip stay the nostalgia.

So why digg? Less bots? Less algorithm? Better algorithm? More or less "AI"? Etc.

As a daily pooper I've wondered for a long time how much poop a weekly pooper poops in one session. Logically it should be seven times the amount I do, but frankly that sounds like an _absurd_ amount. Like multiple flushes worth.

Or is it much more dense and dry leading to less volume?

Well it was responsive but it wasn't physically accurate at all, which makes it non-intuitive. The whole reason side-games like KZ and surf could exist was due to the bad physics. I competed in local IRC KZ tourneys and also surfed a lot in 1.6. The fact that you gained speed by moving left and right repeatedly doesn't make any intuitive sense. The surf scene was also heavily infected with frame-rate tricks (hotkeys to increase fps-limit in the air, and then lowering it on the ramps) since you floated more in the air the higher your FPS was. In the beginning you needed to have a PC that could support 250+ FPS to be a high-end surfer. This was fixed later with server-set fps limits etc. though.

It created an entire universe of movement based mini-games that I treasured more than the base-game, but it was mostly based on unintuitive physics and engine bugs.

I do agree that the modern game's "inertia" and slow heavy movement feels bad though. Last modern game that I remember had really fast and rapid movement was The Talos Principle.

Maybe I should have clarified, I don't have any diagnoses and don't consider myself depressed in the layman usage of the word. The baseline I'm talking about is whatever you call the regular Joe state.

Since I anticipate some people might go "so what lasting effects did you expect?" I guess I'm thinking more about all the amazing stories you read everywhere about psychedelics. Even in movies and media it's usually presented as something that transforms you in one way or another. I've never quite found that to exist.

I've never tried Ketamine but I have tried shrooms, LSD, and DMT. I have never found the effects be to lasting though, regardless of dose. After one or two days I'm always back to baseline.

I've wondered if a similar thing can be how much people are affected by things like Virtual Reality. After the initial five minute first try I never could get very immersed in VR (more than a regular 2D game). I could never feel any fear of height or anything for instance, it didn't grab me.

I've wondered a while if that is a correlation that spans other people. If the people who get blown away by VR would also have large lasting effects of psychedelics, and vice versa.

People have already argued for ChatGPT content in the training data, but I also think it could have something to do with how the models learn self-identity combined with anthropomorphization.

To us humans, self-identity is often the most learned thing of all. We spend our entire lives, every hour of every day, learning who we are (the identity constantly being modified). To many humans the knowledge about who they are is more obvious that 1+1=2.

For an AI model this is completely reversed. Especially for a completely new model. The scale of training data containing nothing about who it is, compared to the slight fine-tuning data in the end that gives it an identity is hardly imaginable.

It's like you were locked inside a dark room for 100 years, only allowed to ingest information about the world, history, etc., through texts and sound, no other senses. At your 100:th birthday a person comes in and lectures for an hour about who you are; your name, your age, your hobbies, your life. Then you are let go into society.

Isn't it obvious how you might occasionally hallucinate that you are Napoleon from time to time? After all you know so much more about him, his life, his aspirations, his internal thoughts, his history, than the one hour lecture could possibly give you. And even this silly thought scenario is not even close to the same scale as an AI model.

To me it's almost surprising that a model can have any self-identity at all. Let alone be as consistent as it is today.

> In such a way, Leibniz, to cite Milton, dared to “justify the ways of God to men.” Voltaire responded with a snarky misreading that exploited the undeniable empirical fact that evil was not balanced by good in the lives of every discreet individual. But Leibniz made no such claim. The best world was optimized as a whole, containing just as much good and evil as was required for the totality of creation.

I like this paragraph. I've never been a big fan of Voltaire's criticism (although I may have not understood it fully, not being a philosophy expert of any kind). To me it always seemed like Liebniz tried to explain why there was suffering on the whole, and Voltaire responding with "there is suffering!". Like you are not really arguing the point.

My question has rather been that, if suffering is required and a child getting bone cancer and dying at five is the best of all possible worlds, maybe the whole project should have been scrapped at the planning phase. I assume God was not forced to create a world?

As a long time lurker here I created an account just to reply to this. I'm in the same boat! Diagnosed five years ago.

It has taught me one thing about how hard finding causations is. While my liver is not fully healthy, ever since diagnosis it's been unchanged (according to scans) and my liver values have been good (for five years!). The reason? Chance, as far as I can tell. I am on the most conservative bog-standard treatment available (only UDCA), and it has been working really well.

Reading online there are a lot of people doing antibiotics etc. I'm not being negative about these attempts (I'm sure it has some efficiency, studies seem promising), my point is just that if I took _anything_, I would contribute my mild progression to it and praise it like a panacea. Causation seems almost impossible to find with n=1. To me pure chance seems to dictate a lot.

I am expecting a day when it all goes downhill though. With that said there does seems to be people who can go all their life without needing a transplant (the doctors seem more confident of this than the statistics, which is another strange oddity, but the statistics have always seemed overly harsh to me. I wonder if late diagnoses contribute to this).