I tried googling to find the answer. First I tried "melting chocolate in microwave" and "melting chocolate bar in microwave", but those just brought up recipes. Then I tried "melting chocolate bar in microwave test", and the experiment came up. So I had to guess it involved testing something, but from there it was easy to solve. (Of course, I might've tried other things first if I didn't know the answer already.)

This is a neat question, but it's also a pretty straightforward recall test because descriptions of the experiment for teachers are available online.

I think alcohol's effects are at least somewhat psychosomatic, but that doesn't mean you can easily get the same effect without it. Once nobody's actually drinking and everyone knows it, then the context where you're expected to let loose is broken. You'd have to construct a new ritual that encourages the same behavior without drugs, which is probably pretty hard.

I agree that the vocals have gotten a lot better. They're not free of distortion, but it's almost imperceptible on some songs, especially without headphones.

The biggest tell for me that these songs are AI is the generic and cringey lyrics, like what you'd get if you asked ChatGPT to write them without much prompting. They often have the name of the genre in the song. Plus the way they're performed doesn't always fit with the meaning. You can provide your own lyrics, though, so it's probably easy to get your AI songs to fly under the radar if you're a good writer.

Also, while some of the songs on that page sound novel to me, they're usually more conventional than the prompt suggests. Like, tell me what part of the last song I linked to is afropiano.

Putting GPT back in the name but making it lowercase is a fun new installment in the "OpenAI can't name things consistently" saga.

Looks like BS. They basically just prompted ChatGPT to churn out a bunch of random architectures that ended up with similar performance. It seems likely that the ones they claim to be "SoTA" just had good numbers due to random variation. ChatGPT probably had a big role in writing the paper, too. The grandiose claims reek of its praise.

Your other posts about game theory were high quality. However, this post doesn't make sense to me.

You try to frame your simulation as "simpler" than regular Newtonian gravity, even though you've added many extra parameters (groups of particles with different forces between each other) which technically makes it more complex. You talk about emergence, but the results are pretty simple too; the particles just form clumps every time. It comes across to me as adding an extra weird feature to a simple gravity simulation and then being impressed that a weird thing happens. Also, the rapid oscillations look like they might be artifacts resulting from forces that are too strong relative to the framerate of the simulation. Particle Life is similar to this, but executed much better.

Then you also talk about forces emerging from entropy, but that doesn't seem relevant. Your simulation doesn't have action at a distance emerging from local interactions, it's just pre-programmed action at a distance where some of the particles happen to be repelling each other instead of attracting each other.

I'm not sure I correctly understood what this article was trying to say, because it jumps between different points and it talks as if you have a theory while being incredibly vague about what it is. What does it mean for gravity to come from "nothing"? There's no concrete explanation.

The true slowdown in the world where this happens is probably greater, because it'd be taboo to race ahead in nations that went to such lengths to slow down.

Elaborating further: I think LW isn't just one of these or the other. I think the community aspect is there and so it's good not to discourage too much and to be helpful in other ways besides criticism/correction, but I also think you can be helpful without making your own posts.