hcta

His information hygiene certainly left something to be desired.

The figures (150 verbal IQ, etc.) seem to be plucked out of thin air, and the central idea---that there would be an IQ 'threshold' separating people who can be successful/good writers from those who can't---similarly backed by nothing. Where is even a hint of what a mechanism for such a threshold might be?

Trying to show off how smart one is is probably part of the motivation behind many interesting comments posted on here, and more generally, a big motivation behind a huge number of the useful things people do. Doing it in a non-obvious way requires additional ingenuity. The cumulative effect of people trying to show off how smart they are has undoubtedly greatly accelerated the development of our species.

I located this course https://github.com/ATOMSLab/LFSE2024 with video lectures @ https://www.youtube.com/@tylerjosephson8860 . Let us know if it's good

This guy was (is) a whole other level of genius.

if you're going to claim that something is not a valid translation of a word, you should probably know what it means first--duh?

> We recruited a total of 54 participants for Sessions 1, 2, 3, and 18 participants among them completed session 4.

> We used electroencephalography (EEG) to record participants' brain activity in order to assess their cognitive engagement and cognitive load

> We performed scoring with the help from the human teachers and an AI judge (a specially built AI agent)

Next up: your brain on psych studies

They have each made the individual choice not to invest more effort in solving the case, the same as you have probably done.

"so-and-so is crazy, so nothing they do can be explained" is right up there with intelligent design as a useless paradigm for understanding the world.

This is a fantastic comment. Very insightful.

i have a local llm installed already but thanks

Then let us not descend to the level of our inferiors but maintain an intelligent standard of discussion. There is no reason to cry whataboutism which is what you are doing here in a roundabout way.

The idea of "whataboutism" as something not "okay" is a rhetorical manipulation tactic.

1. what you're describing as a "file" is really no different from a "password". I assume you're choosing to call it a "file" because you're picturing generating some huge blob, but a randomly generated password doesn't need to be very long to be effectively uncrackable, so I think you're proposing wasting time/bandwidth for no added security.

2. You should always "salt" stored password hashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(cryptography)

3. I think you should look at resources like https://www.vice.com/en/article/wnx8nq/why-you-dont-roll-you... https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/18197/why-shoul... https://www.infosecinstitute.com/resources/cryptography/the-... to examine the arguments against trying to develop your own security schemes as someone with less experience in this space.

should've just used a neural net

you say that like it is a bad thing. Sign me up for the plane of existence without management frameworks please.

surely being able to construct a turing-complete computing device is a sufficient condition to qualify as general intelligence, and it seems like a reasonable bar for considering a purported intelligent agent as interesting.

> It seems foolish to me to search for something when we can't even define it.

This is backwards. The vast majority of concepts outside mathematics are pretty hard to rigorously define. The way we approach the problem of trying to find a sensible definition is by searching for examples and counterexamples and performing induction.

This post seems almost completely vacuous to me. I guess you could read it to mean that if a person cheats, there must be some "societal problem" causing it. That would seem to imply you believe society could in principle be 'fixed' s.t. no one is ever incentivized to cheat. Is that what you mean? Or simply, s.t. fewer people are incentivized to cheat. In that case, duh. But fewer to what extent? And are there any actual constructive suggestions forthcoming?

Write a manual on how to do it, and then market yourself as a writer. What is your secret?

what shenanigans? This reads like a kind of FUD. Once your software has been released under the GPL, you can continue developing it under the terms of the GPL.

I wouldn't guess the risk of this causing major damage is greater than >1%, but it still seems like an unnecessary risk. It is a finger searching for a button and there are buttons out there; e.g. if the agent stumbles on code that, intentionally or due to coding error, can cause denials of service or other havoc triggered by reading a twitter feed or scanning the public web. I guess the person responsible for this joke was too dumb to think of this?

It's interesting to me how people will react to something that seems over-the-top ridiculous with responses along the lines of "omg, this has to be satire"---seemingly without considering the possibility that it is, in fact, satire. Poe's law is a real phenomenon, but I'm fairly convinced this site is a joke.

Why did you post it?

I don't hold it as axiomatic. You can read arguments for this position in works like On Liberty by Mill https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html . But it seems obvious to me that it is true in that if there is a single predominant channel of information, any disinformation propagated on that channel will gain much more credence than if multiple competing channels are available. For example, you can read on how the war in Ukraine in its initial stages gained popular support in Russia as a mission of liberation and "de-Nazification." In support of this propaganda effort, independent news sources were shut down.

Probably in more or less the same way multiple competing viewpoints and opinions improve the search for accurate information.

This does not make sense. One does not have "control" over one's biometrics. The systems that maintain these correspondences belong to other people.

Also, people may want to be identifiable, and/or they may want _not_ to be identifiable. Abstract wealth---having possessions tied to ones identity---would seem to skew the balance more towards the former. Homeless people may be more likely to want the latter. The problem being pointed out here is that this system makes the latter more difficult.

I vaguely remember the treatment of statistics in my high school/college science classes where calculus wasn't used. It was confusing and tedious. They have you memorize quantiles of the normal distribution so you can answer questions referring to the central limit theorem without ever understanding it, because it is not really possible to understand it without understanding integration. Combined with the fact of the general incompetence of people designing high school curricula, I'm fairly convinced that statistics sans calculus as a mandatory requirement would be a waste of time, joke of a class that would the average kid hate math even more than they do today.

Can you clarify what point you're making? If you're trying to argue that adding an extra layer can only reduce performance, any cache is an obvious exception to that. Are you saying it's extraneous to use a database as a storage abstraction because they have to sit on top on filesystems, and filesystems already exist?