Looks like the mantis was partially paralyzed by a hornet sting to me. The article noted that insects engage in nociception with examples, that specific mantis wasn't in that case, but that's certainly not a thing you can generalize from a single Youtube video.
"To be clear, the goal here is not to deny China or any other authoritarian country the immense benefits in science, medicine, quality of life, and so on that come from very powerful AI systems. Everyone should be able to benefit from AI. The goal is to prevent them from gaining military dominance.”
A moralizing statement that weasels out of the implication.
This would be a more straightforward way to say it: Export restrictions are necessary to prevent China from gaining military dominance, even if those restrictions deny China the immense benefits in science, medicine, quality of life, and so on that come from very powerful AI systems.
U.S. even failed on military too as China recently demostrated their 6th-gen fighters, i.e. their own NGAD[1], while U.S. has paused the NGAD development.
Arrogance is the biggest enemy of U.S., not China.
Why are the live statistics so different than the conclusions in the paper?
Here you can see that CA power is more than double the cost of PJM, Southwest, and Midcontinent power. Whenever I look at it, CA is still be burning a huge amount of natural gas, especially overnight.
No, the key is to use the full context window so you structure the prompt as something like: For each line below, repeat the line, add a comma then output whether it most closely represents a product or service:
Corporate social media with a feed designed to maximize engagement monetized with targeted advertising is a very different thing from a blog out a forum.
Yes location services typically uses wifi scanning first, and GPS only when high accuracy location updates are needed. (since its lower battery drain and faster)
Hmm, not to chose sides too much, but I found it to be a long-winded allegory that only partly succeeds in advancing its argument. I'm skeptical some kind of cheerful fatalism is holding us back, the most obvious objection is that any kind of amazing cure for aging would be very unlikely to reach everyone. And if it did, we'd have to deal with tremendous demographic pressures (which the story artfully dodges at the very end).
> cure for aging would be very unlikely to reach everyone
The story makes the point that governments will be incentivized to distribute the cure to everyone as fast as possible. Considering the US spends 1/7th of GDP for healthcare and the majority of those health problems are age related. Covid-19 showed us that administering something to an entire population in a quick manner can be done and isn't even that costly.
> And if it did, we'd have to deal with tremendous demographic pressures
What kind of demographic pressures are you talking about?
No they will not. Not in the least. Or put it this way, regardless of any incentives you can imagine, the overriding dynamic will be that powerful people will use immortality to remain in power forever, and they will have every incentive to prevent whomever they deem undesirable, unproductive, etc. from getting good health care.
Which is exactly how it works now.
Immortality will not be called immortality, it will be called premium health care. It will be incredibly expensive. It will be a subscription service.
Very flawed study. Looked at profession based on death certificate which is most recent profession.
Those with Alzheimer's likely won't last long as taxi drivers so they find a new profession. And voila their profession from the viewpoint of this study is no longer taxi driver.
Much surprise that our lauded peer review process didn't catch this.
> Additionally, death certificates included a field for reported usual occupation (the occupation in which the decedent spent most of their working life), generally completed by a funeral director with help from the decedent’s informant.
So, not as closed-case as you suggest.
Slam-dunking on studies is a top-tier trope on HN. All studies are flawed, but some are useful.
The author's themselves acknowledged this very point as the most important weakness of the study:
Firstly and perhaps most importantly, selection
bias is possible because individuals who are at higher
risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease may be less
likely to enter or remain in memory intensive driving
occupations such as taxi and ambulance driving.
This could mean that the lower Alzheimer’s disease
mortality observed in these occupations is not due to
the protective effect of the job itself but rather because
those prone to the disease may have self-selected out
of such roles. However, Alzheimer’s disease symptoms
typically develop after patients’ working years, with
only 5-10% of cases occurring in people younger than
65 years (early onset).
Their explanation however only holds if pretty much all taxi drivers retire at 65 which is clearly not the case. It also ignores the relative prestige of professions. If your father both owned a store and drove a taxi for awhile which will you put on the death cert? Then do airline pilot plus owned a store.
Also dunking on studies is very much the point. The goal is to challenge beliefs and figure out where we are wrong.
We're well short of an obvious slam dunk. We're into a caveat that applies 5-10%% of the time, presented (perhaps disingenuously) as a personal "aha" in a curt, unjustified, and completely dismissive manner on a post that didn't deserve it. Just bad discussion all around, so I stick by the pushback. But it no longer matters - better discussion was had by all in other threads.
> Here is there selection criterion and justification:
“occupations involving extensive day-to-day navigation, with often unpredictable, real time navigational demands.”
> All subjects died between Jan 1 2020 (COVID) to Dec 31, 2022.
> There was no data on duration between active employment in listed employment categories and age of death.
This study is a formalization of existing outlier data, that many people associate with Alz resistance. This is basically anecdata.
I would love to and could do a better job, the barrier is the current system, it is immediately dismissed as unscientific if done outside of academia or an institution adjacent.
It is certainly harder to get published as an independent researcher, but it is also not unheard of. See discussion at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_individual_without_a... Publishing your own study isn't the only way to critisise a hypothesis, you could also just write a rigouros blog post.
Also: Scientists are humans, not godlike beings in ivory towers, thus science lives from participation. If you can find a methological flaw in a study that you are confident about, consider writing them. Who knows, maybe they already accounted for it (and you learn something) or they didn't (and they learn something). Either way they get a chance to clarify or correct.
In the end the goal is to help figuring out what effective Alzheimers prevention looks like. Creating a good discourse around a study can be helpful, but it is also important to be rigorous and communicative when doing so. See as an example the discussion in the peer review of the discussed study, especially the section on survivorship bias: https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/bmj-arti...
If I wrote a study that has a flaw I'd like to be the first to hear about it, just like I like to get a bug report when my software has a bug. Especially if it is a good cause.
How confident do you have to be to make a comment like this? Not only point out a problem, but make a snarky comment about the larger system in top of it. What happens to your psyche if you’re wrong? Is the risk of being wrong outweighed by the emotional boost of being right? Did you even consider you might be wrong? I’m genuinely curious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3Hq7zTb1J4
reply