Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


I have ADHD, and found creating my own decks to be a chore. The freely available ones related to medicine are usually oriented towards people giving the USMLE, and I'm not the target demographic.

I do still use the principles of spaced repetition in how I review my own notes, especially before exams, because of how obviously effective it is.

I hadn't considered making them for memorizing formulae, but truth be told I could just save them to my phone, which I always have on me.

If I need to refer to Baye's theorem during a surgery, something has clearly gone wrong haha.

I did say it was only a minor issue! Thank you for the advice nonetheless, it's good advice after all.


I admit it's a moderately shameful fact about my cognition that I consistently forget the equation for Bayes' theorem even when I constantly trumpet that other doctors should be more consistent and explicit in using it.

I can sorta figure it out when needed, but this eases a small but real pain point.

Great post, I felt it really defined and elaborated on a phenomena I've seen recur on a regular basis.

It's funny how consciousness is so difficult to understand, to the point that it seems pre-paradigmatic to me. At this point, I like, like presumably many others, evaluate claims of conscientiousness by setting the prior that I'm personally conscious to near 1, and then evaluating the consciousness of other entities primarily by their structural similarity to my own computational substrate, the brain.

So another human is almost certainly conscious, most mammals are likely conscious and so on, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say that novel or unusual computational substrates such as say, an octopus, aren't conscious, I strongly suspect their consciousness is internally different than ours.

Or more precisely, it's not really the substrate but the algorithm running on it that's the crux of it, and it's only that conservation of the substrate's arrangement constrains our expectations of what kind of algorithm runs on it. I expect a human brain's consciousness to be radically different from an octopus because the different structure requires a different algorithm to handle, in the latter case a far more diffuse one.

I'd go so far as to say that I think substrate can be irrelevant in practise, since I think that a human brain emulation experiences consciousness near identical to one running on head cheese, and not akin to an octopus or some AI that was trained by modern ML.

Do I know this for a fact? Hell no, and at this point I expect it to be an AGI-complete problem to solve, it's just that I need an operational framework to live by in the mean time and this is the best I've got.

I think anyone making claims that they're on the side of "objective" morality is hopelessly confused and making a category error.

Where exactly does the objectivity arise from? At most, a moral memeplex can simply become so omnipresent and universal that people take it for granted, but that's not the same as being actually objective.

I can look around and see no evidence of morality being handed down from the heavens (and even if it was, that would be highly suspect. I deny even a hypothetical ASI or God himself the right to make that determination, any more than they can make 2+2=3 by fiat).

At the end of the day, there's nothing to hide behind when subject to the Socratic Method, at one point or another, you simply need to plant your feet in the ground and declare that it is so because you say so.

At most there are axioms that are convenient to hold, or socially useful, or appealing to the same mammalian brain, in the manner that monkeys and dogs hate unfairness or show kin preference.

To look for something fundamental below that is foolishness, because there's no reason to think that such a grounding even exists.

Mind you, being a moral relativist doesn't stop me from holding onto the supremacy of my own morals, I just don't need the mental comfort of having an ineffable objectivity to prop that up.

Perhaps at the end of the day there'll be a memeplex that's hyperoptimized for human brains, such that we can't help but be attracted to it, but that's more from it being convincing than it being true.

Did they try running unCLIP on an image of a room with an unlit lamp, assuming the model had a CLIP encoder?

That might have gotten a prompt that worked.

  1. Would we really understand a glitch if we saw one? At the most basic level, our best models of reality are strongly counter-intuitive. It's possible that internal observers will incorporate such findings into their own laws of physics. Engineering itself can be said to be applied munchkinry, such as enabling heavier than air flight. Never underestimate the ability of humans to get acclimatized to anything!

  2. Uncertainty about the actual laws of physics in the parent universe, allowing for computation being so cheap they don't have to cut corners in simulations.

3)Retroactive editing of errors, with regular snapshots of the simulation being saved and then manually adjusted when deviations occur. Or simply deleting memories of inaccuracies from the minds of observers.

I think you glossed over the section where the malevolent AI simultaneously releases super-pathogens to ensure that there aren't any pesky humans left to meddle with its kudzugoth.

I appreciate this post, it sparked several "aha" moments while reading it.

I can't recall much in the way of rationalist writing dealing with Marginal vs Universal moral arguments, or What You See is All There Is. Perhaps the phrases"your incredulity is not an argument" or "your ignorance is a fact about the map and not the territory" might capture the notion.

Bacteria have systems such as CRISPR that are specialized in detecting exogenous DNA such as from a potential viral infection.

They also have plasmids that are relatively self-contained genetic packets, which are commonly the site of mutations conferring resistance, and which are often exchanged in the bacterial equivalent of sex.

However, to the best of my knowledge, there's no specific mechanism for picking out resistance genes from others, beyond simple evolutionary pressures.

The genome is so small and compact that any gene that isn't 'pulling its weight' so to speak will likely be eradicated as it no longer confers a survival advantage, such as when the bacteria find themselves in an environment without antibiotics.

Not to mention that some genes are costly beyond the energy requirements of simply adding more codons, some mechanisms of resistance cause bacteria to build more efflux pumps to chuck out antibiotics, or to use alternate versions of important proteins that aren't affected by them. Those variants might be strictly worse than the normal susceptible version when antibiotics are absent, and efflux pumps are quite energy intensive.

There's no real foresight involved, if something isn't being actively used for a fitness advantage, it'll end up mercilessly jettisoned .

SCP stands for "Secure, Contain, Protect " and refers to a collection of fictional stories, documents, and legends about anomalous and supernatural objects, entities, and events. These stories are typically written in a clinical, scientific, or bureaucratic style and describe various attempts to contain and study the anomalies. The SCP Foundation is a fictional organization tasked with containing and studying these anomalies, and the SCP universe is built around this idea. It's gained a large following online, and the SCP fandom refers to the community of people who enjoy and participate in this shared universe.

Individual anomalies are also referred to as SCPs, so isusr is implying that the juxtaposition of the "creepy" nature of your discoveries and the scientific tone of your writing is reminiscent of the containment log for one haha.

Load More