Does this framework also explain grokking phenomenon?
I haven't yet fully understood your hypothesis except that behaviour gradient is useful for measuring something related to inductive bias, but above paper seems to touch a similar topic (generalization) with similar methods (experiments on fully known toy examples such as SO5).
Really good point. Though I would argue that most deadlined life goals have deadlines only because of mortality itself. I’m trying to think of an example of a life goal with deadline even if immortality is achieved, but it seems hard to find one.
Why is longevity not the number 1 goal for most humans?
Any goal you'd have would be achieved better with sufficent longevity.
Naturally, eternal life is the first goal of my life.
But to achieve this, global cooperative effort would be required push the science forward.
Therefore nowadays I'm mostly thinking about why longevity seems not in most people's concern.
In my worldview, longevity should be up there with ESGs in decision making process.
But in reality, no one really talks about it.
In conclusion I have two questions:
Is putting longevity over any other goal a rational decision?
And if so, why isn't general population on board with it?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am still getting used to this site so excuse me if I had made any faux pas.
I agree that longer articles with multiple bullet points are easier to refute in parts. However I think majority of the claims should be falsified to falsify the whole argument. For example, you have made 3 points to refute my argument. If I refute only 1 of your point, I believe your point still stands. Therefore I have to present counter argument for more claims. Start of the refute was easier but ultimately it seems harder.
Perhaps the wording could be improved. I have edited the article to reflect this.
Regarding your second claim, I agree that the point of a blog post isn't to make it easy to refute. However I believe that the point of the blog article is to get the argument across and have an insightful discussion. Because refutability is a key element in rational discussion, thus articles that have better refutability is more constructive.
About refuting an entire post versus part I believe this is where we might have a disagreement. I still believe that refuting only part of the post does not refute the argument of the post, therefore less valuable for the discussion. Therefore refuting entire post will hopefully be rewarded extra internet points by the community for contributing to the discussion more.
Writing prefers shorthand, whereas reading prefers full words.
Writing is thinking.
I sense some actionable insights that I can infer from these two statements, but I cannot find one.
Below are some explanation of above statements.
On "Writing Prefers shorthand":
Scientists prefer very short names to denote their variables.
Many Perl and Shell scripters use shorthand and boasts superior developer performance of launching stuff.
On "Reading prefers full words":
In python, usage of shorthand variable is discouraged because of the "Readability Counts" philosophy. There's a saying that you will spend sixfold more time reading the code than writing the code, therefore the code should be optimized for reading, not writing.
On "Writing is Thinking":
Many authors and scientists such as Feynmann wrote to think.
Amazon's 6 pager method is used as a tool to force the writer to think, as powerpoint slides can hide flawed thinking in plain sight, and is still used heavily as a method to clearly think through a proposal.
I can sense the ephiphany right around the corder, which will give me at least 5% increase on productivity for my current interests, which are daily thought organization, long term PKM, writing software, documenting software, and how to leverage LLMs in product development.