Posts
Wiki Contributions
Comments
To check if A causes B, you can check what happens when you intervene and modify A, and also what happens when you intervene and modify B. That's not always possible though. You can consult "Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference" by Pearl for more details.
They commit to not using your data to train their models without explicit permission.
I've just registered on their website because of this article. During registration, I was told that conversations marked by their automated system that overlooks if you are following their terms of use are regularly overlooked by humans and used to train their models.
1When learning to sing, humming is used to extend your range higher. Not sure if it's used to extend it lower.
I would like to make a recommendation to Johannes that he should try to write and post content in a way that invokes less feelings of cringe in people. I know it does invoke that because I personally feel cringe.
Still, I think that there isn’t much objectively bad about this post. I’m not saying the post is very good or convincing. I think its style is super weird but that should be considered to be okay in this community. These thoughts remind me of something Scott Alexander once wrote - that sometimes he hears someone say true but low status things - and his automatic thoughts are about how the person must be stupid to say something like that, and he has to consciously remind himself that what was said is actually true.
Also, all these thoughts about this social reality sadden me a little - why oh why is AI safety such a status-concerned and “serious business” area nowadays?
I've been learning to play diatonic harmonica for the last 2 years. This is my first instrument and I can confirm that learning an instrument (and music theory) is a lot of fun and it has also taught me some new things about how to learn things in general.
I hum all the time anyway.
Unless I don’t recognize the sounds. It’s like asking me to beatbox the last 5 seconds of the gurgling of a nearby river. How the fudge would I do that?
Wait, are there people who can do that?
I think that's pretty easy :)
Ok, so let's say you've been able to find a countably infinite amount of real numbers and you now call them "definable". You apply the Cantor's argument to generate one more number that's not in this set (and you go from the language to the meta language when doing this). Countably infinite + 1 is still only countably infinite. How would you go to a higher cardinality of "definable" objects? I don't see an easy way.