epestr

Given Anthropic's recent moves (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50319358) I wonder if ChatGPT is next

Definitely. It's funny that by scrapping HN we are able to better curate those sites. Though I wonder if big social's data is worthwhile anyway given it skews towards the median.

I used Terra of course, on historic HN dumps I found online. How did you?

Haha, I've got 26+1 (mine not included yet)

Have Terra run over the 11Gb of data definitely helped me with the speed. And sure, I think I too should add a link to mine now that it has a HN link. I'd be interested to see if your search gets you something Terra missed.

Built it! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50339309

Inspired by this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50335619

I was quite inspired by the content bar of this site: https://zachlandes.com/trolley-problem and gwern. Though I do think my blog isn't particularly all that minimal I try to add a lot of colors to make it look less dull.

Is there a trend in increase of minimalistic website which are LLM generated and explicitly made minimal to not seem sloppy?

Anti ichthys?

I find it interesting how a mathematician enjoying theory-building or playing with ideas gets recast here as rent-seeking. It sounds much like certain right-wingers complaining that kids these days don't want to work, just stay in university studying useless things at the taxpayer's expense.

You've misunderstood the scare quotes. I meant the community's perception of "Bayesian thinking", rather than Bayesian inference itself. Calling your reasoning Bayesian doesn't establish that it is, much as {{person of particular religion}} calling themselves moral doesn't establish their morality.

I'm not a specialist in either, though I know of Plantinga and don't dismiss him as a preacher. From what I was able to find, there's engagement on this topic with back and forth, so I'm not sure it's settled. I'm not sure how much LW posts are discussed by an out-group.

https://fitelson.org/plant.pdf

On knowability, the SEP says: "There is no consensus about whether and where the proof goes wrong", so I'm not sure this is a good example of a trivial issue either.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

And I wasn't claiming philosophy contains no flawed arguments, but dismissing the entire corpus rather than peacemeal attack seems reactionary rather than reformative.

The sheep bit is the whole rationalist glorification of "Bayesian thinking". Stones being beliefs and sheep the reality you observe and the process Bayesian thinking.

Scott Alexanders's blog description for example: P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary.

That seems like a false dichotomy. I don't think either describes the median online opinion. Loud reactionary voices tend to be confident and extreme and bad times promote reactionary views.

The divination sticks passage is quite ironic here. Markos' belief is explained through punishment for out-think, but rationalist communities aren't exempt from social conditioning either. Repeated exposure makes certain reasoning feel natural, while people who dislike it may leave. That's part of what I'm criticising, rather than choosing an opposing internet camp. It could be concerning that the same rationalist thinking might carry into safety research (https://www.lesswrong.com/users/beth-barnes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METR)

Every group has people susceptible to the same social pressures and of varying intelligence, and to claim yours is better at being less wrong, is a bit dangerous.

This is pretty much what I meant above in the other comment. No particular paper, no concrete argument with the supposed logical mistake identified (and here you'd need a sample too), just an explanation of why the whole field is like this.

I wouldn't say it's a stretch that LW will largely accept a similiar comment because it fits what the in-group believes about philosophy.

Yes! There's often no clear thesis or argumentative structure, instead it reads like notes after a rabbit hole session, with little convincing involved.

I see comments defending them for considering "all viewpoints", but these are still a subset of perspectives they've constructed themselves. Good philosophy engages with a work in a way its readers would recognise, rather than arguing against a simplified set of beliefs and closing the book claiming victory.

Even in my brief stint with philosophy of biology, I saw concrete examples and actual positions discussed in the texts, while a lot of rationalist constructions seem to reduce what people believe to almost comical reductive strawmen. I'd say the verbosity often compensates for the lack of historical depth or understanding on the topic.

An example: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/X3HpE8tMXz4m4w6Rz/the-simple.... Its fictional opponent's inability to understand elementary explanations does much of the argumentative work.

Though sadly what I'm doing here is pretty much the same. Maybe the quantity the internet allows us to produce simply makes this form of argumentation more natural.

The verbosity and ability to rationalize let's you come up with reasons which makes sense to your in-group quickly, even if it isn't often grounded in reality. They're quicker to rationalize than understand.

Tweets aren't great for citing sources, two links and you hit the word limit.

Do you not think their belief to some extent involves believing formalizing things [even to a reductively useless point] makes them more adept at understanding the world?

I'll cite an example: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-.... I can make the case that one might feel smarter simply having read through the grating writing.

You might've seen this already, but searching Sound Blaster manuals for surround sound, I found CMSS here: https://files.creative.com/manualdn/Manuals/TSD/2389/sblive..... Might be what you're looking for?

Thanks for the links. These look like related techniques (like the one the reference software I used has patented), though knowing the general approach wasn't enough for me to get something that sounded good. I'd already tried constructing filters with delays and frequency dependent gains.

The particular coefficients made a considerable difference, which is why I ended up measuring an effect I already liked. I see some example values included in the patents here though, so those might be worth trying.

Thanks, I learned quite a bit doing this. In factthe discussion has given me several things I hadn't managed to find earlier, giving me more things to explore and learn about.

Isn't Brave open source? https://github.com/brave/brave-core

Thanks for sharing this. I also tried constructing an effect using ITD, ILD, biquad filters and delay lines in saqol, but I never got it to sound good (so that effect isn’t included in the web version): https://github.com/mTvare6/saqol/blob/main/crates/saq-dsp/sr...

Do you still have a working demo anywhere? The link in your post seems to be down, and I'd be interested in hearing it.