Kinrany

3 ms·

1.
by Kinrany 5d ago
I wouldn't know, for the same reason: I don't see the point in watching a stream rather than something one specifically wants to watch.
2.
by Kinrany 5d ago
Ads consume attention, so I do prefer static. Then again, I don't know why people watch TV (at all) or browse without uBlock.
3.
by Kinrany 5d ago
I wonder if languages could and should allow enforcing both properties.
4.
by Kinrany 5d ago
I find it hard to distinguish between knowing how something works, and being able to predict its behavior (including ways to create and destroy it) with probability approaching 1
5.
by Kinrany 8d ago
If passkeys were implemented properly, the would be most useful to relatively technical users that already use password managers. Ideally, the only real change is that a single text password is replaced with multiple non-text "password
6.
by Kinrany 8d ago
I disagree completely and I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise
7.
by Kinrany 8d ago
This sounds like the same kind of error as writing "0.10 cents" because it's less than a dollar when the number is in dollars regardless of how big or small it is
8.
by Kinrany 9d ago
It's common to talk about complex machines exhibiting unexpected behaviors as if they had minds of their own, starting with cars. There's no reason to stop doing that with AI when they do that more often than any other kind of mac
9.
by Kinrany 9d ago
GP isn't claiming to read the author's mind, they're very clearly claiming that one definition matches the author's actual words.
10.
by Kinrany 9d ago
"Mostly" in the title implies otherwise.
11.
by Kinrany 9d ago
> Can "ASI will inevitably kill us all" be falsifiable before we create ASI? No, but there are decent proxies, like "Alice who is X standard deviations smarter than Bob will win >50% of the time at game Y even given a d
12.
by Kinrany 9d ago
There should be a standard for backups, one that makes it possible for a (potentially distributed) system to talk to a backup system and to save or restore a snapshot.
13.
by Kinrany 10d ago
So we should probably have a contingency for that, just like we plan for other bad things like natural disasters that may or may not happen, right? Right?
14.
by Kinrany 10d ago
It's very clear that people will absolutely put the silicon brains into the most powerful harnesses they can come up with just to see what happens.
15.
by Kinrany 10d ago
There are at least a few bad guys in the world whose kill switches do not seem to be working even in the absence of futuristic tech.
16.
by Kinrany 10d ago
The demand for human-level intelligence is obviously at least the same order of magnitude as all office jobs combined. I'm personally skeptical of LLMs getting there without at least one new invention. But it's also empirically cl
17.
by Kinrany 10d ago
What does "based on reality" mean to you?
18.
by Kinrany 11d ago
The analogy breaks down when the wolf in question may very well eat the whole village: even if the boys who cry wolf are right half the time, every surviving village would have a history of no wolf ever coming to eat them
19.
by Kinrany 13d ago
TFA responds to exactly this: the state that accumulated in those 3-5 years is what cannot be thrown away.
20.
by Kinrany 15d ago
Number of iterations solved correctly, on a very large set of iterations, seems like a very good metric. Better than anything else because it measures what we actually care about, not some proxy. The only caveat is that it's the same m
21.
by Kinrany 17d ago
Children being cared for solely by their parents isn't "natural": children used to be raised by entire villages
22.
by Kinrany 20d ago
I'm curious why they lost to McDonalds
23.
by Kinrany 21d ago
I don't know the mechanics! Just the observation that memories recalled many times tend to change more. It kind of makes sense in that we do not retain the raw information, it's always interpreted, and it needs to be updated to be
24.
by Kinrany 22d ago
That is, it's bad that these situations happen and that's why they should be regulated away when possible. But if you can't personally change the status quo, the next best thing is to accept the game and respond in kind.
25.
by Kinrany 22d ago
> And, if you don't agree with the terms, you shouldn't click "I Agree." Nah, it's perfectly reasonable to click it if you know you're being transparently lied to in a way that won't hold up in court.
26.
by Kinrany 23d ago
In the rest of the civilized world adults are expected to have common sense and be truthful when it comes to formal transactions.
27.
by Kinrany 23d ago
As long as we're in copyright world, it ought to be structured as three separate parties: 1. Licensor, the company who makes the game. 2. Licensee, the person buying a digital copy of the game. 3. Safekeeper, Steam or another platform
28.
by Kinrany 24d ago
We do know that memories get rewritten every time they are remembered
29.
by Kinrany 25d ago
It doesn't require that everyone switch at the same time, unlike other VCSs.
30.
by Kinrany 26d ago
Yes, my objection is to the use of "market forces", which are widely assumed to favor efficiency. What we're talking about is, pedantically, something else, something like "capital allocation game theory". A differe

More ›