The user could always write a comment (or a separate post) asking why they got a bunch of downvotes, and someone would probably respond. I've seen this done before.
Otherwise I'd have to assume that the user is open-minded enough to actually want feedback and not be hostile. They might not even value feedback from this community; there are certainly many communities where I would think very little about negative feedback.
Update: R1 found bullet point 3 after prompting it to try 16x16. It's 2 minus the adjacency matrix of the tesseract graph
Would bet on this sort of strategy working; hard agree that ends don't justify the means and see that kind of justification for misinformation/propaganda a lot amongst highly political people. (But above examples are pretty tame.)
I volunteer myself as a test subject; dm if interested
So I'm new here and this website is great because it doesn't have bite-sized oversimplifying propaganda. But isn't that common everywhere else? Those posts seem very typical for reddit and at least they're not outright misinformation.
Also I... don't hate these memes. They strike me as decent quality. Memes aren't supposed to make you think deeply about things.
Edit: searched Kat Woods here and now feel worse about those posts
There have been a lot of tricks I've used over the years, some of which I'm still using now, but many of which require some level of discipline. One requires basically none, has a huge upside (to me), and has been trivial for me to maintain for years: a "newsfeed eradicator" extension. I've never had the temptation to turn it off unless it really messes with the functionality of a website.
It basically turns off the "front page" of whatever website you apply it to (e.g. reddit/twitter/youtube/facebook) so that you don't see anything when you enter the site and have to actually search for whatever you're interested in. And for youtube, you never see suggestions to the right of or at the end of a video.
I think even the scaling thing doesn't apply here because they're not insuring bigger trips: they're insuring more trips (which makes things strictly better). I'm having some trouble understanding Dennis' point.
"I don't know, I recall something called the Kelly criterion which says you shouldn't scale your willingness to make risky bets proportionally with available capital - that is, you shouldn't be just as eager to bet your capital away when you have a lot as when you have very little, or you'll go into the red much faster.
I think I'm misunderstanding something here. Let's say you have dollars and are looking for the optimum number of dollars to bet on something that causes you to gain dollars with probability and lose dollars with probability . The optimum number of dollars you should bet via the Kelly criterion seems to be
(assuming positive expectation; i.e. the numerator is positive), which does scale linearly with . And this seems fundamental to this post.
(Epistemic status: low and interested in disagreements)
My economic expectations for the next ten years are something like:
Examples of powerful AI misanswering basic questions continue for a while. For this and other reasons, trust in humans over AI persists in many domains for a long time after ASI is achieved.
Jobs become scarcer gradually. Humans remain at the helm for a while but the willingness to replace ones workers with AI slowly creeps its way up the chain. There is a general belief that Human + AI > AI + extra compute in many roles, and it is difficult to falsify this. Regulations take a long time to cut, causing some jobs to remain far beyond their usefulness. Humans continue to get very offended if they find out they are talking to an AI in business matters.
Money remains a thing for the next decade and enough people have jobs to avoid a completely alien economy. There is time to slowly transition to UBI and distribution of prosperity, but there is no guarantee this occurs.
This whole thing about "I would give my life for two brothers or eight cousins" is just nonsense formed by taking a single concept way too far. Blood relation matters but it isn't everything. People care about their adopted children and close unrelated friends.