It's baffling to me that anyone would do this in the age of LLMs. All of the author's concerns could've been solved or greatly mitigated by loading her PKM into a model as context. The article doesn't mention that she even considered this as an option. I hope the files can be recovered when she realizes this possibility.
>All of the author's concerns could've been solved or greatly mitigated by loading her PKM into a model as context
No, because the correctly identified concern by the author is much deeper. Knowledge isn't some repository of data, or some solipsistic LLM simulacrum of it, it's practiced, social, contextual. A real brain, unlike the "second brain", intentionally forgets.
To have agency is to purposefully erase, cut through BS, and start from a clean slate. Any person who has done anything meaningful starts with an empty sheet of paper. There's a reason all these note taking gurus have exactly zero actual work to their name, it's just productivity LARPing. Every single time you see one of these "productivity" advocates you try to look up if they've build something that has helped even one person with all their productivity, nothing. They just keep yapping about their notes.
If you truly never believe anything anyone has ever told you until you prove it yourself, I'm amazed you've somehow learned to type in English on a website with accounts.
We trust people all the time for many reasons. Authority, past experience, logic (why would they lie about something in context), etc. and we get by alright. Knowing it's another conscious, mortal human existing in society makes it much easier to know when someone is likely being truthful.
Obviously there are all sorts of caveats to that. The main difference is that LLMs don't lie. They don't tell the truth either. They just generate stuff with no meaning. There's no way to ever put any trust in that, the same way I wouldn't trust my ice maker to make sure my dog gets enough water while I'm on vacation.
people assert their opinions as facts, they parrot bullshit they heard or read online and make no attempt to verify anything, they willingly spread lies in support of their political or spiritual beliefs, they lie or exaggerate to make themselves look good or to make people they don't like look bad, or they even just straight up lie for no reason. to say anything said by an LLM is a lie until proven otherwise and then act like it's ridiculous to apply the same thing to humans is nuts.
LLMs have no concept of facts or lies, or right or wrong.
And contrary to your rather morbid view of society, in general most WP editors try hard to get it right. And support rather than undermine each other (don't let the more contentious topics distract you from the much larger pool of contributions)
More to the point, with humans you can demand they provide a source and at scale the iterative process should get to the right answers for a good percentage of content. That won't work for LLMs because none of that has meaning.
I'm an attorney barred in the US, so I'm not familiar with this kind of sentencing. However, I'm having a hard time understanding commenters trying to add nuance to IPP sentences simply by saying that inmates don't get released because they keep committing violent offenses while inside.
The reasonable thing to do in such cases is to give the inmate a new trial for each of those alleged offenses. This is very basic due process.
it is truly baffling... My personal theory is that society dehumanizes prisoners and felons constantly, especially through media and through cultural means. So I believe that bias plays a LOT into how people perceive blatant injustice against them. This is inherently denying a human being their basic rights to a trial and basic dignity.
Im genuinely repulsed by the general sentiment here (and in general) regarding incarcerated people. It doesn't help that crime based reporting has been flooding social media and news channels at disproportionate rates post 9/11's 24 hour news cycle. Its almost always an obvious attempt to evoke an emotional response too, despite crime steady decreasing over 50+ years by a fairly large margin.
Correct, It's trivial to both maintain that humans deserve some rights and the prisoners do not, if you conclude then that prisoners are not human. They must be subhuman, beings of lesser worth.
This is particularly evident in American systems of modern slavery. In states like Georgia, prisoners are forced to work 40+ hours a week in places such as fast food establishments (McDonald's etc). They make well under minimum wage, and they're not allowed to miss work. Simple missteps result in punishment, loss of "good time". This means no phone calls, no visits, no venturing outside.
Such a system, if employed on everyday people, would be unthinkable. But for prisoners it's not only prevalent, we view it as a privilege. The right to work and earn money is so gracious to give to these dogs, and they should be thankful. Parole, too, is a reward, and they should be so lucky to endure 20+ years of slavery for the mere chance of getting out.
Does it really surprise you that normal, law-abiding people don't like criminals? Them being allowed to re-enter society at all should be seen as a privilege.
Wrongful convictions happen, should normal law-abiding citizens that get thrown in jail just suck it up and expect no due process because they are now a "criminal"?
The fair trial and "due process" was the initial conviction. The punishment for that is imprisonment until they prove to a parole board that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
That's the thing about "due process", isn't it? It's just a phrase that basically means "the law", and the law can be changed by legislation and judges, and the law can be unjust. The phrase is nothing more than giving airs of being impartial or some check and balance against the law. This hapless fellow got his "due process".
I hear you, but the problem is that the alternative is much worse. These indefinite detentions lend themselves to all manner of corruption. Maybe a prison guard doesn't like you and falsely claims you committed a violent offense, just to keep you inside. Maybe a fellow inmate attacks you, and when you defend yourself, it gets registered as a violent offense.
The first element of due process is that a citizen be notified that the State is mobilizing its resources with the intention of depriving them of their life, liberty, and/or property.
Another core tenet of due process is that, once notified, you get a chance to submit evidence in your favor before an impartial adjudicator, precisely to avoid the issues in my first paragraph.
I'm just saying that due process doesn't mean fair or just.
Normal parole boards in America with American due process also do not have an obligation to release people unless their guilt for further crimes can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they're also part of what is called due process.
You can argue this legal punishment is no good, but you can't argue for due process because he got it. In fact that is exactly what people have argued, hence this punishment being removed from the books. But in a cruel and seemingly unjust twist of "due process" of the law, the punishment was not vacated for all of those previously convicted. So if anything you would plead for an exception to normal due process here and ask that the change be retroactively applied, wouldn't you?
I'm not a geologist, but 2000 m in 37 million years is ~0.05 millimeters per year. Is that about the right rate of growth for mountains formed through subduction and volcanism?
By comparison, the Himalaya (maximum height, > 8800m) are only ~50m years old, are among the fastest rising mountains in the world, and Everest itself has an average growth rate over the period of 0.18mm/yr.
The fastest rising peak, presently, is Nanga Parbet, in Pakistan (part of the Himalayan Plateau), rising at 7mm/yr.
That's 70mm/decade, and 700mm (~3/4 meter) every century.
[Also not a geologist, but] apart from volcanism from subduction, there were also other landmasses being sheared off the subducting plate and accreted onto the western part of the continent. It was all probably higher before the many millions of years of erosion up until now?
It's so frustrating to get seemingly contradictory results across species with the same treatment. The Interventions Testing Program found no increase in median or maximum lifespan in mice, male or female, treated with metformin (though it did in combination with rapamycin) [0].
I realize "decelarating the aging clock" might be subtly different than increasing lifespan, but it's a reasonable enough comparison, imho. Hopefully we can soon capitalize on improvements in AI to faithfully model human biology in silico, and conduct experiments that way.
I am pessimistic about purely in silico or even in vitro methodd to tackle a problem as complex as aging rates. Improving mouse models to incorporate a high level of genetic diversity is a better first step. This is what our group of resesrchers is doing now. Results are promising and results are also highly dependent in genetics and sex.
Improving the genetic diversity of mouse models doesn't help you when a humans are far more complex, anyway. You may find a universal effect for a mouse, it's still a mouse. You're trying to fix the space shuttle by testing changes on automobiles.
Perhaps we should be looking at function levels at 70, 80, 90% of lifespan rather than looking for quantity of life.
Logistically speaking, humans tend to have a lot of disposable income at 60-70% of life expectancy. From the Enlightened Self Interest perspective, extending that zone before functional decline would not only improve society but also be profitable.
Yep, optimize healthspan not necessary lifespan. Best to do both and “rectangularize” survival functions (falling off a cliff). Lots of effort on this now.
yep, mice are burning calories much more actively than larger mammals, and if anything i'd not be surprised for the opposite result - ie. if mice on metformin die earlier from exhaustion and starvation.
Those encouraging folks to "just shave it off" fail to realize that it's so much more than a vanity issue. From an evolutionary standpoint, baldness is perceived in the female brain as a sign of poor sperm quality [0].
True, but they are also encouraging to instead invest in other parts of your body which can more than compensate for this negative effect on female humans. Muscles…
That's weird, because women these days seem to really love dogs. There's a stereotype about women loving cats (which do not normally have a strong body smell at all), but these days women seem to greatly prefer dogs over cats. I think it has something to do with the fact that dogs require far more maintenance than cats, so they basically act as surrogate children. Cats are independent and don't need to be bathed (you do have to clean their litter box, but that's about it) or walked 3x a day so you can pick up their fresh poop in your hand, so they don't take any time out of your day, or force you to adapt your schedule to theirs, the way dogs do.
I meant that a specific strong body smell in men has been shown to be attractive to a lot of women, it doesn’t specifically smell like dog, but the study also showed that men dislike this odour – unless it’s exactly theirs ;) hence me calling it “dog smell”, but it’s inaccurate.
Well it was one specific smell, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. “Old sweat that closes your throat because it’s so unbearable” is definitely not that =)
Cats are far more maintenance than dogs. I went over a decade just buying food and toys for my dog. I got a cat (a very laid back cuddle monkey) and he eats more than the dog, loads our HVAC filter with fur, requires daily cat box maintenance, and has been to the vet more times than I can remember and now has a prescription.
"Because all of the included participants were from infertile couples, this appears to be a limitation of the study..."
Pretty big limitation, and their discussion really is just there to justify publishing anyway. Both groups, bald and shaggy, may as well have been shooting blanks.
I don’t find any mention of this on the study. But even if there was you realize how insignificant that signal is compared to everything else right? From personal anecdotes to any married bald man it’s trivial to show it’s irrelevant. Like others have said work on what you can improve, like getting fit, and obviously confidence and empathy first by getting female friends and in the process realizing they are not cavewomen. If you are seriously looking at studies for what is attractive then that’s 100% the problem, not your hair.
It's totally possible to both acknowledge its something that can be surmounted or is only a single factor in attraction while also acknowledging it's almost always a negative, the same way being short, being stupid, being poor, having bad style, being fat, being awkward etc. would be.
If this works and becomes a common dental procedure I will be soooo happy. Every time I go to the dentist I ask them if anything like this is coming down the pipeline and they laugh...
