I would recomend thay anyone with dependents, or any other need for economic stability (e.g. lack of safety net from your family or country) should focus on erning money.
You can save up and fund yourself. Or if that takes too long, you can give what you can give 10% (or what ever works for you) to support someone else.
2Definetly yes to more honestly!
However, I think it's unfair to describe all the various AI safery programs as "MATS clones". E.g. AISC is both order and quite diffrent.
But no amount of "creative ways to bridge the gap" will solve the fundamental problem, because there isn't a gap realy. There isn't lots of senior jobs, if we could only level up people faster. The simple fact is that there isn't enough money.
2So the section headings are not about the transmission type investigated, but which transmission type the studies pointed to as the leading one?
1Datapoint: I found EAG to be valuable when I lived in Sweden. After moving to London, I completely lost interest. I don't need it anymore.
I'm confused by the section headings.
"The large particle test" and "The small particle test" you write about under "Fomites" seems to be about Aerosols.
The experiments described under "Aerosols" seems to be either about mixed transmission or Fomites only. Passing around cards and poker chips, etc.
Am I missunderstanding something?
I remember reading that some activation stearing experiments used x100 size activation vectors. Is this correct? That would be much larger than the normal activation in that layer, right?
How does the model deal with this? If there is any superposition going on, I expect activation spill over everywhere, breaking everything.
If you amplify the activations in one layer, what effect has that on the magnitude of the activations in the next layer? If it's smaller, by what mechanism? That mechanism is probably an error correction algorithm. Or just some suppression aimed at not letting the network thinking about too many things at once, in order to keep down interference.
Does anyone have experience with activation stearing, and would be up for helping me out? E.g. aswer my questions, jump on a call, or help me set up my own experiments?
I mean trying to signal something more specific than, e.g. dressing according to the norms of ones profession. Anything that the person would expect others to understand as some other information than "I belong here", or I have X official role.
E.g. haivng a high-vis vest if you're a rode workier, or wearing nicer cloths if you're at a dress-up occation does not count. Whereing a t-skirt advertising you like chess counts, if and only if you're not currently at a chess club, and you chose it deliberatly.
Thanks :)
I will reviel the true answer to 2 in about a week, in case anyone else want to take a guess.
Yes, I just rememebered that I forgott to do this. Oops.
I chose my clothing based on:
The list is roughly in order of priority, and I don't wheare anything that does not at least satisfise some baselevel of them.
Point 2 depend on the setting. E.g. I wouldn't go to a costume party without at an atempt at a costume. Also at a costume party, a great costume scores better on 2 than an average on, this is an example of fitting in not being the same as blending in.
In general 2 is not very constraining, there are a lot of diffrent looks tha qualify as fiting in, in most places I hang out, but I would still proabbly experiment with more unusual looks if I was less conformist. And I would be naked a lot more, if that was normal.
I'm emotionaly conformist. But I expect a lot of people I meet don't notice this, becasue I'm also bad at conforming. There is just so much else pulling in other directions.