I am happy to have contributed something that I believe was near the frontier of rationalist knowledge on this niche subject, and I think I did a reasonable job of it with the time and experience I had.

I still endorse personally that it works for me and achieves goals that I like.

I doubt the post should be winning any annual review votes. Unless someone really wanted to give encouragement for more things like this.

I would be interested in someone doing this again with a deep research tool.

Thank you!

First up, I thought this line was strikingly poetic for a technical topic, and would be above-average quality even for a human technical writer.

So you're absolutely right that it's a different kind of environment — but it's been engineered to work well for fungal metabolism. Nature grows molds on oranges; industry grows them in soup with bubbles and stainless steel.

Chat link. The second sentence is what struck me.

I'm enjoying being curious about the world around me with the benefit of being able to ask an endlessly patient expert. Go ahead and ask your favorite LLM how the citric acid in your gatorade is made. 

I'm gonna try making a thread of interesting LLM conversations, maybe some fun prompts, images, or techniques.

From personal introspection (importantly not what the question is asking), there's a difference between my ability to update towards two views: 

1. "Oh the situation is different than I thought, and actually I should turn most of my attention towards this new thing"
   1. I'm better at this when I have more energy
2. "I made a mistake and should stop doing X, or admit past fault"
   1. I get worse at that one

On simple, questions of fact, that I've avoided tying into my ego in one way or another, I expect I'm better but I'm not sure.

I would also expect extraneous details like, "got sick and fell of the wagon" or similar to add significant noise. And with only one data point each, it'd be hard to know the variance to use. I'm guess I'd trust this study more?

To be clear I don't know what I'm doing really. I do think that it failed to get the precise thing I was looking for though.

🙇‍♂️

"Cruxy" is a useful term to have in my vocabulary. I use it relatively loosely to refer to the type of thing I look for in a double crux. A consideration is more "cruxy" if it's closer to a but-for support for a proposition. Interestingly (mildly) this is very similar to the definition of "crucial," and in fact the etymologies are the same.

The California vibes in that video are immaculate. Even mentioning Windham Hill Records!