neilmock

No, it has only input. Divergence from reality (insofar as it can be centered) is a hallmark of human thought as well, so perhaps the models are simply performing.

coders discover epistemology, more at 11

Python did introduce more love, kindness, and empathy into the world.

I'm probably going to perma-delete my HN account after this, but this is my main complaint with popularized scientific research being parroted for political purposes. "The paper isn't written for a non-expert audience" yet one of the authors is going on Anderson Cooper tonight to talk about it to a non-expert audience.

If you read the literature, they compare a symptomatic viral infection to having your hand or foot broken, or a pelvic fracture, or a mild to severe head trauma. I do not see any evidence of those things being equivalent.

I would not value the public health cost dollar estimate of an asymptomatic infection at 11k. I would not value the public cost dollar estimate of a non-hospitalized infection at 33k.

I didn't realize I would get a bill when not seeking medical intervention at all, especially for $11,000 or $33,000.

If you look at the parameters for the "valuation" of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, they are hard to take seriously. They are based on a mapping of typical workplace injuries to viral infections. This is the paper referenced: http://ftp.iza.org/dp13632.pdf.

A purely asymptomatic infection is valued at $11,000

A symptomatic but non-hospitalized infection is valued at $33,000

If you are in the hospital for any reason with an infection, $512,000

If you are in the ICU for any reason with an infection, $1,100,000

If you are in the ICU on a ventilator, $2,900,000

Some amazing question begging happening here. Value is subjective.

This 100%. I also grew up poor and having a certain amount of money alleviates a ton of problems and people don’t realize how taxing day to day survival can be in the modern economy with not enough. It is pure survival mode until you reach a threshold.

It's the same power dynamic that will be in place forever, incumbents unable to recognize talent outside of their narrow perspective. The penalty is paid by the candidate, and the company will usually go along just fine, but it is a sad broken system for a lot of qualified people.

Very much in the same boat, I've been doing something similar and trying to pursue some long-term lofty objectives without compromising my current work/life situation. Making steady progress on personal projects helps a ton.

social media may be awful but willfully partitioning society on the basis of wealth is really bad...

this kind of marginal cost-cutting at the expense of medium/long-term productivity is commonplace yet baffling to me. even if it doesn't increase productivity, surely it increases retention to some degree, I just don't get why you wouldn't make a small investment here as an owner/manager.

The assumption in all articles of this variety is that media consumers are either incapable of or not motivated to evaluate the veracity of content placed in front of them. This, rather than the ethics of 'media company X' seems to be the issue worth considering.