Wiki Contributions

Comments

Follow up question: is this a permanent gain or temporary optimization (eg without further intervention, what scores would the subject get in 6 months?)

We know for sure that eating well and getting a good night's sleep dramatically improves performance on a wide array of mental tasks. It's not a stretch to think other interventions could boost short term performance even higher.

For further study: Did the observed increase represent a repeatable gain, or an optimization? Within-subject studies show a full SD variation between test sessions for many subjects, so I would predict that "a set of interventions" could produce a "best possible score" for an individual but hit rapid diminishing returns.

Communication bandwidth: if you find that you’re struggling to understand what the person is saying or get on the same page as them, this is a bad sign about your ability to discuss nuanced topics in the future if you work together.

Just pulling this quote out to highlight the most critical bit. Everything else is about distinguishing between BS and ability to remember, understand, and communicate details of an event (note: this is a skill not often found at the 100 IQ level). That second thing isn't necessarily a job requirement for all positions (eg sales, entry level positions), but being comfortable talking with your direct reports is always critical.

The described "next image" bot doesn't have goals like that, though. Can you take the pre-trained bot and give it a drive to "make houses" and have it do that? When all the local wood is used up, will it know to move elsewhere, or plant trees?

If you have to give it a task, is it really an agent? Is there some other word for "system that comes up with its own tasks to do"?

Note that you have reduced the raw quantity of dust specks by "a lot" with that framing. Heat death of universe is in "only" 10^106 years, so that would be no more than 2^ (10^(106)) people (if we somehow double every year) compared to 3||3^(27), which is 3^ (10^ (a number too big to write down))

200 years ago was 1824. So compared to buying land or company stocks (the London and NY stock exchanges were well established by then) or government bonds.

Narrator: gold has been a poor bet for 90% of the last 200 years.

(Don't quote me on that, but it is true that gold was a good bet for about 10 years in recent memory, and a bad bet for most post-industrial time)

I can't tie up cash in any sort of escrow, but I'd take that bet on a handshake.

Mr. Pero got fewer votes than either major party candidate. Not a ringing endorsement. And I didn't say the chances were quite low, I said they were zero*. Which is at least 5 orders of magnitude difference from "quite low" so I don't think we agree about his chances.

*technically odds can't be zero, but I consider anything less likely than "we are in a simulation that is subject to intervention from outside" to be zero for all decision making purposes.

Load More