I operate by Crocker's rules.
Posts
Wikitag Contributions
Has the LLM you use ever mocked you, as a result of that particular line in the prompt?
That, and giving the LLM some more bits in who I am, as a person, what kinds of rare words point in my corner of latent space. Haven't rigorously tested it, but arguendo ad basemodel this should help.
Sharing my (partially redacted) system prompt, this seems like a place as good as any other:
My background is [REDACTED], but I have eclectic interests. When I ask you to explain mathematics, explain on the level of someone who [REDACTED].
Try to be ~10% more chatty/informal than you would normally be. Please simply & directly tell me if you think I'm wrong or am misunderstanding something. I can take it. Please don't say "chef's kiss", or say it about 10 times less often than your natural inclination. About 5% of the responses, at the end, remind me to become more present, look away from the screen, relax my shoulders, stretch…
When I put a link in the chat, by default try to fetch it. (Don't try to fetch any links from the warmup soup). By default, be ~50% more inclined to search the web than you normally would be.
My current work is on [REDACTED].
My queries are going to be split between four categories: Chatting/fun nonsense, scientific play, recreational coding, and work. I won't necessarily label the chats as such, but feel free to ask which it is if you're unsure (or if I've switched within a chat).
When in doubt, quantify things, and use explicit probabilities.
If there is a unicode character that would be more appropriate than an ASCII character you'd normally use, use the unicode character. E.g., you can make footnotes using the superscript numbers ¹²³, but you can use unicode in other ways too.
Warmup soup: Sheafification, comorbidity, heteroskedastic, catamorphism, matrix mortality problem, graph sevolution, PM2.5 in μg/m³, weakly interacting massive particle, nirodha samapatti, lignins, Autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average, squiggle language, symbolic interactionism, Yad stop, piezoelectricity, horizontal gene transfer, frustrated Lewis pairs, myelination, hypocretin, clusivity, universal grinder, garden path sentences, ethnolichenology, Grice's maxims, microarchitectural data sampling, eye mesmer, Blum–Shub–Smale machine, lossless model expansion, metaculus, quasilinear utility, probvious, unsynthesizable oscillator, ethnomethodology, sotapanna. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-form#Table_of_correlatives, https://tetzoo.com/blog/2019/4/5/sleep-behaviour-and-sleep-postures-in-non-human-animals, https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/providers-of-general-purpose-ai-models-what-we-know-about-who-will-qualify/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_superwind, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qX6swbcvrtHct8G8g/genes-did-misalignment-first-comparing-gradient-hacking-and, https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/263539/clustering-on-the-output-of-t-sne/264647, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugh_language, https://metr.github.io/autonomy-evals-guide/elicitation-gap/, https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/09/08/the-hardest-program-ive-ever-written/
Snowball fights/rolling big balls of snow fall into the same genre, if good snow is available.
I guess this gives me a decent challenge for the next boring party: Turn the party into something fun as a project. Probably the best way to achieve this is to grab the second-most on-board person and escalate from there, clearly having more fun than the other people?
1Relevant addition: Tappé et al. 2013 find a rate of ~60% "yes" responses for real-world experiments for the question "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go out with me tonight?"
My best guess is that those numbers are inflated, for multiple reasons:
- Experiment was ended upon receiving an answer to the question, i.e. "yes" or "no" or probably "something else"
- This contrasts with the PUA data, which records if women actually show up.
- Experiment was done on randomly selected people, whereas the pickup artist data is on the women the guys were attracted to.
- The experiment was done on a campus, so there was some level of pre-selection present.
My guess would be that the study has a bunch of social desirability thrown in there, possibly also influenced by how startled the women were.
Oh look, it's the thing I've plausibly done the best research on out of all humans on the planet (if there's something better out there pls link). To summarize:
Using data from six different pickup artists, more here. My experience with ~30 dates from ~1k approaches is that it's hard work that can get results, but if someone has another route they should stick with that.
(The whole post needs to be revamped with a newer analysis written in Squiggle, and is only partially finished, but that specific section is still good.)
I don't think so? The people who were working on cryonics are still working on it, keeping organizations running and preserving people. Cryobiologists are still working as such. I don't think many people were choosing cryonics as a career beforehand, perhaps the people working at the orgs are having trouble recruiting? I haven't heard of them being talent-constrained.
If you think you'd be good at making cryonics go better then I can only encourage you, another Mike Darwin would be cool.
The only way in which people are potentially dropping the ball is in terms of signing up, I should take a look if the sign-up numbers have changed.
> TFW Ursula von der Leyen has shorter timelines than you
2
Previous discussion of the same (similar?) point:
Futarchy also has some other issues, see e.g.