*60
Similarly, the abstract notes that children enrolled in childcare before age 12 months had experienced 0.5 - 0.7 more infections than peers enrolled at 3 years, cumulatively, by the time they got to age 6 years. To be sure, that certainly corresponds to more than one actual infection, since "infection" in this paper means an infection serious enough to result in an antimicrobial (usu. an antibiotic) being prescribed, but is not an enormous effect.
I wonder why you conclude this 'is not an enormous effect'. Maybe it's differences in antibiotic usage between ...
*10
Apparently you can select the text, and then add a 'reaction', and one of the reactions is 'this is a typo'. And then a barely visible marker pops up next to the text. Maybe you already know this, but I just figured it out, and there could be other newbies that missed it.
I'm always scared of pointing out typos, because on LessWrong it feels like everything you say should be super important, so I am very glad the 'typo' reaction exists. Although I first need 5 karma, so I am not allowed to point out typos before I post some meaningful stuff.
Edit: Oh dear, now I read the text again, and it's really not clear if 'plause' is a typo.
10
The laws of physics tell you how things progress, but don't tell you the starting point. So even if you had the enormous computational power to deduce biology from physics, you would still need to know what a dog is to say something useful about it. So maybe an important question is: would a superintelligence have enough information of earth and its inhabitants so it would not need any more info because it can just reason about it, or would it need to gather more?
10
We again omit technical governance, AI policy, and activism. This is even more of a omission than it was last year, so see other reviews.
The link to 'other reviews' links to a google doc of this post. I think it should be an internal link to the 'other reviews' section.
1
Some piece of text seems to be missing here.