Wiki Contributions


Ok, fair point, I was going too far in assuming that the sort of engineering necessary was physically impossible.

I think the evidence against (most) miracles is stronger because they violate the laws of physics. Although I think the same could be said for a few UAPs--if a UAP moves in a way that is physically impossible as far as we know, that's strong evidence against it being aliens, because aliens still have to follow the laws of physics.

How would a tic-tac to accelerate at 700g with no visible propulsion, even positing the existence of super-advanced technology? The best I can think of off the top of my head is that it's using an extremely strong magnet to manipulate its position relative to earth's magnetic field. But that would require an absurd amount of energy so it would probably need to be powered by a tiny cold fusion reactor (which may be physically impossible), and it would still need to avoid emitting noticeable amounts of heat, and even if it has some sort of hyper-insulating shell, it would need internal parts that don't evaporate under that much heat, and also need to avoid emitting the massive amount of heat that would be generated by friction with the air.

To add more on "what we don't see": if some UAPs are aliens, why have they been on earth for decades, but they haven't done anything yet other than fly around? Why have they never landed (or, if they've landed, why did they only land at secret military bases)? My prior is that if intelligent aliens visited earth, they would do one of two things:

  1. They arrive in force, and their presence quickly becomes undeniable.
  2. Their scouts arrive and fly around for only a short time.

It seems a lot less likely that they'd arrive, fly around for decades, get spotted several times, but only ever in the distance.

It's weird that the US has such a low price to income ratio and thus such a high rental yield. In an efficient market, real estate investors should flock to countries with high rental yields, buying up housing until rental yields equalize. Why hasn't this happened yet?

If you disagree but can't succinctly explain, I would suggest doing one of these things:

  1. Write a long comment explaining your disagreement
  2. Write a short comment stating your specific points of disagreement, with a disclaimer that you don't have time to fully justify your beliefs

Your comment is being downvoted (I suspect) because it does neither of these, instead it indirectly insults the author without providing any information as to why you disagree. IMO this sort of comment doesn't really contribute anything—all I know is that you disagree, I have no idea what's going on inside your head, so I'm not learning anything from it.

Perhaps it's worth distinguishing between two types of "I don't know":

  1. I don't know because I haven't put any thought into it. (This is the type of "I don't know" that teachers rightly discourage.)
  2. I don't know because I have considered several hypotheses, and none of them explain my observations. (For example, my mental model of heat conduction predicts that the close side of the plate should be hotter, not the far side, so that explanation fails.)

Perhaps teachers should encourage students to replace "I don't know" with "my mental model predicts A, but I observe B", which communicates that the student is thinking correctly about the problem.

One concern I have with this method is that it's greedy optimization. The next character with the highest probability-of-curation might still overly constrain future characters and end up missing global maxima.

I'm not sure the best algorithm to resolve this. Here's an idea: Once the draft post is fully written, randomly sample characters to improve: create a new set of 256 markets for whether the post can be improved by changing the Nth character.

The problem with step 2 is you'll probably get stuck in a local maximum. One workaround would be to change a bunch of characters at random to "jump" to a different region of the optimization space, then create a new set of markets to optimize the now-randomized post text.

Thanks for the reply. If I'm understanding correctly, leaving aside the various complications you bring up, are you describing a potential slow growth curve that (to a rough approximation) looks like:

  • economic value of AI grows 2x per year (you said >3x, but 2x is easier b/c it lines up with the "GDP doubles in 1 year" criterion)
  • GDP first doubles in 1 year in (say) 2033
  • that means AI takes GDP from (roughly) $100T to $200T in 2033
  • extrapolating backward, AI is worth $9B this year, and will be worth $18B next year

This story sounds plausible to me, and it basically fits the slow-takeoff operationalization.

Fortified milks usually don't contain much iron. The soymilk in my fridge (Silk unsweetened) has 120% RDA of B12 but only 6% RDA of iron.

Load More