Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


Or just a post-hoc rationalisation, by people who know you're "supposed" to salt the pasta water, but don't really know why. Because they've been taught to cook by example rather than from theory and first principles (as most of us are), maybe by someone who also didn't know why they do it.

If they've also separately heard that salt raises the boiling point of water, but don't really know the magnitude of that effect, then that presents itself as an available salient fact to slot into the empty space in "I salt my pasta water because..."

"Lab leak" doesn't necessarily imply "created in a lab".

The "leak" theory as I've understood it is still about a naturally occurring virus - with samples being collected from wild animals and studied at a lab, before it escaped again.

How does the kazookeylele rate for good combined hand+mouth usage?

Ah, apparently I rolled maximum hard mode that time, as it was indeed 30% chance of fellow soldier death

I reasoned similarly that the cost of a FP was less than for a FN and called in the air strike; it told me some other guy died. I reloaded the same scenario and tried a direct attack; I got shot by a sniper.

I feel like I rolled "hard mode" the first time I loaded the page: 50% are snipers, 60% sniper hit rate, 40% regular hit rate (so no difference on priors and not much to tell the difference between them), and then they only deigned to take two shots at my helmet (one hit, one miss) before catching on to the ruse.

I guess "sometimes the world doesn't provide convenient data" is a valid part of the lesson. But if I were tweaking the variables I might patch in a higher minimum number of shots against the helmet (I did see it become willing to take many more on subsequent re-rolls)

Might also be more satisfying if the air strike option revealed whether it really was a sniper - even when I'm confident they were, I find myself repeating the scenario and choosing "attack" to check.

The suggested responses are usually something that the user might want to say to Bing, but here they seem to be used as some kind of side channel for Bing to say a few more things to the user.

For a truly general audience, I suspect this may be too long, and too technical/jargon-y. Right from the opening, someone previously unfamiliar with these ideas might bounce straight off at the point of "What's a transformer architecture?"

Also I am personally bugged by the distinction not really being observed, between "what evolution has optimised our genes for", "the goal of evolution / of our genes" (although neither of those have any kind of mind or agency so saying they have goals is tricky), and "the terminal goal of a human" (adaptation executors not fitness maximisers—we don't adopt the goals of evolution/genes as our own).

But making that point more carefully might well be contrary to the goal of being more accessible overall.

When the subject comes up, I realise I'm not sure quite what to imagine about the chatbots that people are apparently developing intimate relationships with.

Are they successfully prompting the machine into being much more personable than its default output, or are they getting Eliza'd into ascribing great depth and meaning to the same kind of thing as I usually see in AI chat transcripts?

Tiny spelling nitpick

Time passed, as it is want to do.

"Wont" with an o is the archaic/literary word for customary behaviour that I expect you were thinking of.

My reward is usually reading fiction or playing a video game.

How do you avoid noticing that you could do those things without doing the habit first?

Load More