I see what you're getting at, viz the inconsistency around 'aided'. However, as it seems that an 'unaided' mind will behave anything like ideally I don't think I'd agree that the inconsistency exists in fact. Isn't the 'aid' here a software package built up by a culture in light of the systematising ideas, and which gets sold on the basis of the mountain of evidence it explains?
A practice I have found useful is estimating the time it takes to do things: length of a journey door to door, time to write a piece of code and get it reviewed, time from setting off shopping to everything being stored away. People are generally on the optimistic side, and time falls through the cracks between stages of a task.
Nice article. I perhaps take issue with this:
And to a large extent, people do pursue those frontiers. It’s no secret that an academic can easily find fertile fields by working with someone in a different department. “Interdisciplinary” work has a reputation for being unusually high-yield.
Since (top tier, excluding Nature, Science) journals typically care most about single axis achievements.
I'm a little concerned that this could lead to operationalization of the fundamental attribution error. If you're in a conversation with someone who says intelligent things, does it matter if they are an intelligent person?
I was just being information greedy. I don't even know what aspects of health have useful supplements available - so I'm not sure what's on the menu as it were.
Any suggestions to help (dry) skin conditions would be particularly warmly received though.
The efficient markets hypothesis is that one should expect 'no remaining region' to be the default. While betting may not be as competed as finance, there are still hedge funds etc doing betting.
Also I would suggest thinking about expected utility greater than some positive threshold to take into account transaction costs. I suppose that this would make a good deal of difference to how many such regions you could expect there to be.
This is a good idea.
Though I think that the condition that 'nobody could memorize more than a fraction of it' is actually quite hard to meet. E.g. legal training seems analogous, and lawyers seem to be able to remember a lot of examples.
If the corpus could be kept secret or ever changing that might help.
When I was thinking of something similar, I had a concern about the task length. E.g. will this result only in relatively short or simple tasks?
You lucked out in terms of your journey, the shortcut through SSC may have saved you a number of years ;)
My only advice on careers would be to strongly consider doing some ML capabilities work rather than pure AI risk. This will make it much easier to get enough qualifications and experience to get to work on risk later on. The risk field is so much smaller (and is less well received in academia) that setting yourself that goal may be too much of a stretch. You can always try to pick thesis topics which are as close to the intersection of risk and capabilities as possible.
For me 'deeply' involves coding. I must have read dozens of papers carefully and then failed to implement the technique first time due to either my misunderstanding something, or finding something in the paper to be unclear, wrong or omitted! Or you realise that the technique works well but would scale horribly / can't be extended etc. That could take several days - so that treatment is reserved for special selections.