fourier456

I think you have a point. The paper has load bearing reliance on other preprints. I think soon we see a workflow where AI (ChatGPT) can identify precise transitions in the argument that do not require full formalization to falsify. Link - https://chatgpt.com/share/693cc655-ca94-800c-870a-a5c78fb10d...

Okay, wait though like I want to know the full transcript because that actually is a better / softer benchmark if you measure in terms of the necessary human input.

Tbf you can always ask an LLM to explain it /s

yea dating apps can be useful for other groups, lgbt, finding people with cultural connections, etc.

This just isn’t really a good book. One sign; it’s an arXiv book.

Rhetorical question, what do you think?

This comment seems misguided. I am a grad student working with LLMs in a CS department. I promise you CS has (and will have) much to say about theoretical underpinnings of transformers.

I can’t wait for like 2-3 years from now when we can explore this with vision-GPTs trained with different languages.

How does your strategy work? Perhaps distinguish it from naive approaches.

This annoys me. If you understand the last two words, it’s very likely you understand the first. Just like OP above.

We seem to agree. LSD is not animating people to seek out groups of sober people. Alcohol is more likely to do that. The drug is incapacitating in a way the other isn’t. Plausibility for the alternative hypothesis is established. Last reply here.

Public intoxication is illegal in many places. My point is that you can be out in public (comfortably) while drinking whereas that’s less the case with other drugs like LSD. It’s not an absolute claim. I’m just saying the alternative explanation is at least plausible. I think I succeeded.

Maybe not? It’s a reasonable alternative explanation. Both seem to be viable.

A substance that doesn’t incapacitate you - regardless of what it does or doesn’t do - will have a leg-up in the marketplace.

For whatever reason, I find it creepy to read about other people having received the same spam that I did.

This also started a few weeks back for me, more unsolicited calls/texts.

This kind of behavior could be adaptive, but is likely mal-adaptive in proportion to fungibility with ‘social-interaction’.

At the end...“This article was written entirely by GPT-3”...are you also GPT-3?

Before we had a theory of planetary motion, epicycles were used. While obviously we stopped adding circles everytime a planetary prediction was off, the fact that some waves can approximate any reasonable function *is* interesting in it’s own right. I take a similar stance with signaling.