In the CFAR Handbook they have the following process instructions for Murphyjitsu: > 1. Select a goal. A habit you want to install, or a plan you’d like to execute, or a project you want to complete. > 2. Outline your plan. Be sure to list next actions, concrete steps,...
According to Wikipedia, the rough timeline is that there were several standards in use by military and civil aviation in the 1940s and earlier, including separate standards for Latin America and elsewhere, and these used Zebra in the US and UK. The International Air Transport Association presented a draft in1947 to the standards body International Civil Aviation Organization that was meant to rectify this, but it still contained Zebra. Apparently this alphabet wasn't good enough, because the ICAO hired a linguistics professor to create a revised alphabet, and it's this one that first contained Zulu, published in 1951.
There were several subsequent revisions following this, where the words were tested in university laboratories... (read more)
I do find this one generally better, since I think the overall discussion is not that novel and so doesn't need such long explanation. That said, it did lose a key justification from the other post, that Twitter's size makes it akin to the public square, which is why this kind of rule is necessary to contemplate.
I thought it would be about resigning from the responsibilities of your job that you dislike to work fewer hours on only the parts that interest you more.
I wonder whether there would be much pressure for an LLM with the current architecture to represent "truth" vs. "consistent with the worldview of the best generally accurate authors." If ground-level truth doesn't provide additional accuracy in predicting next tokens, I think it would be possible that we identify a feature that can be used to discriminate what "generally accurate authors" would say about a heretofore unknown question or phenomenon, but not one that can be used to identify inaccurate sacred cows.
I downvoted this post because I think this genre of "essay written by GPT" has quickly become tiresome. If someone wants to use GPT as a sort of code completion for essay writing, and thus stands behind all the points, edits it for coherency and to ensure that there are deeper thoughts being explained, it's no big deal. But just reading unedited GPT essays doesn't feel like a great use of anyone's time now that the novelty has worn off.
For language flashcards, you can have the front card be something like "Biblioteca" and the back card "Library [generated picture of a library]." This helps recall even though it's not part of the prompt-- it just seems to stick better in your memory.
The reason that the villagers didn't trust the boy that he didn't have a track record. One reason we don't trust people who are loudly proclaiming certain kinds of doom is that they don't have a track record of accurately predicting things (e.g. Heaven's Gate), and that's an inherently important aspect of the phenomenon this post is describing. If the child had accurately predicted wolves in the past, real world villagers would have paid attention to a 15% warning.
The post is suggesting that certain kinds of risks have low probability, and the predictors don't have a track record of success because it's impossible, but that they have other lines of evidence that can be used to justify their probability estimates. In the case of "nuclear war that hasn't happened despite the scares" the evidence is events like the Cuban missile crisis or Petrov Day. But in the parable, it isn't established that the child has good arguments to justify 5% or 15% wolf appearance rates.
It's very cool, especially as a side project. If I'd known it was created by someone here I would have been more careful about the tone of my comment.
I tried WriteHolo against an idea I had for a blog post and its recommendations were worse than useless. I think for non-fiction writing it's probably a non-starter. It couldn't even give me a concise summary of something readily available on Wikipedia (e.g. the availability heuristic), much less suggest creative connections that are at all coherent.
In the CFAR Handbook they have the following process instructions for Murphyjitsu:
- Select a goal. A habit you want to install, or a plan you’d like to execute, or a project you want to complete.
- Outline your plan. Be sure to list next actions, concrete steps, and specific deadlines or benchmarks. It’s important that you can actually visualize yourself moving through your plan, rather than having something vague like work out more.
- Surprise-o-meter. It’s been months, and you’ve made little or no progress! Where are you, on the scale from yeah, that sounds right to I literally don’t understand what happened? If you’re completely shocked—good job, your inner sim endorses your plan! If you’re not,
I suppose you could consider the 80,000 hours job board if not adjacent, at least adjacent-adjacent.