Thank you - this is the comment I was going to write.
Bartender at my local place wearing a loose-fitting charcoal suit (think Father John Misty): painfully cool. Robert from Industry wearing a black suit on his first day at an investment bank: totally out of place (“get a new suit, you look like fucking Neo”).
Nit: scaling up RL by 100x and inference by 10,000x would be a 1:3 OOM ratio I think
Or nicotine spray (like Nicorette QuickMist).
I get "invite invalid" when I follow the link.
I have often wondered if having a “no complaining” experiment would be similarly useful.
Sahil has been up to things.
This links to a sequence where the most recent post is 7 months old - so I don't really understand the context (and I still don't know who Sahil is). Can it be made clearer?
Sentience is absolutely the thing that matters here. My thermostat can respond to changes in its environment but that does not make it a moral patient.
Sorry but none of these things remotely imply that plants are conscious any more than an amaoeba is conscious (responding to external stimuli, chemotaxis, etc). Citation very much needed for “plants can learn things”.
I would have thought this would do the majority of the work and is the lowest-suffering way to do it by far.
‘Reality has a surprising amount of detail’ must be one of the lindiest posts on here. Well done @jsalvatier!