topaz0

13 ms·

271.
by topaz0 1y ago
What ever happened to measuring speed, cadence and pedal force using your body and mind?
272.
by topaz0 1y ago
Worth noting that the essay acknowledges that there are ways that people use this stuff and actually like it. Saying it's a scam is about those uses being orders of magnitude less valuable than the companies involved (and credulous med
273.
by topaz0 1y ago
I have a way that is (all but) free -- just watch the video if you care about it, or decide not to if you don't, and move on with your life.
274.
by topaz0 1y ago
I agree that constraining yourself can be a useful exercise on the path to developing taste. The advice arises because it is useful at some point in the learning process. I think we agree on the basic point too, which is that taste is the u
275.
by topaz0 1y ago
The problem with all syntax-based writing advice is that it's an extremely poor substitute for taste, and taste has to be developed by years of sitting with prose, good and bad, and seeing what makes you cringe and what gives delight.
276.
by topaz0 1y ago
Hold on a second... are you spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars of your own money to pay for AI? People are doing that?
277.
by topaz0 1y ago
Not assume , rather observe . I think mostly they are just nihilists that don't care what happens to anybody but themselves. Michael J Fox is not in this category, and neither is Parkinson's research "longevity" resear
278.
by topaz0 1y ago
I think you'd be surprised by how many of those deaths would have been preventable by earlier healthcare access. Just medicaid expansion reduced all-cause mortality rates by about 3% on average, compared to non-expansion states. That&#
279.
by topaz0 1y ago
Have you looked at the current healthcare market, where even the cheapest and most proven drugs are exorbitantly expensive? This is a laughable pipe dream in this society (read, the society that protects the profits of the ultrarich over th
280.
by topaz0 1y ago
I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's hea
281.
by topaz0 1y ago
\lipsum has been perfectly good at that for decades
282.
by topaz0 1y ago
The article also doesn't claim there will be no impact, and indeed acknowledges that for particular roles it could be very consequential. The headline is just that when you average over everything the economy does, a 0.5% to 1% product
283.
by topaz0 1y ago
The column mentions manufacturing automation and claims that even though automation has been wildly successful, that automation gives less than 30% increase in total productivity (edit to add: in those particular tasks where it is most effe
284.
by topaz0 1y ago
You're not thinking this through. Your human life (with its associated 2000 Cal/day) does so much more than find bugs in obscure codebases. Or at least, one would hope.
285.
by topaz0 1y ago
It reduces the value of a human life to the incremental rate at which they produce some concrete product. It is absurd.
286.
by topaz0 1y ago
Those types of calculation are extremely disingenuous.
287.
by topaz0 1y ago
And the memory quantity, memory speed, disk speed are also vastly higher now than 20 years ago.
288.
by topaz0 1y ago
I'm not sure about the context of that Kennedy quote, but as presented it doesn't read as a case for redefining GD(or N)P, but rather as a reason not to take it as a measure of the success of society. I think that's correct,
289.
by topaz0 1y ago
Criminally wasteful.
290.
by topaz0 1y ago
The title is about intelligence and that is a fair concern, but honestly I think the bigger issue (also discussed in the article) is more about discernment, which is foundational for any kind of human fulfillment IMO.
291.
Are ChatGPT and co harming human intelligence?(theguardian.com)
68 points by topaz0 1y ago|82 comments
292.
by topaz0 2y ago
Sure, lots of drudgery, but none of your examples are things that you could trust an LLM to do correctly when correctness counts. And correctness always counts in science. Edit to add: and regardless, I'm less interested in the "L
293.
by topaz0 2y ago
Honestly it's worse than this. A good lab biologist/chemist will try to use it, understand that it's useless, and stop using it. A bad lab biologist/chemist will try to use it, think that it's useful, and then i
294.
by topaz0 2y ago
Note that the section with that heading also discusses several other negative features. The only false positive rate mentioned in the article is more like 30%, and the true positives in that sample were mostly trivial mistakes (as in, havin
295.
by topaz0 2y ago
Much of the coverage of this story has credulously repeated the company's marketing press release without any sort of critical appraisal of the actual significance of the announcement (read: not much) or of the stated goal, which is mi
296.
by topaz0 2y ago
The push here is much more from techno-utopian venture capitalist grifters than from scientists.
297.
Do Not Be Bamboozled by the New Fluffy Mouse(defector.com)
4 points by topaz0 2y ago|0 comments
298.
by topaz0 2y ago
This is such a bad idea. Skip the first section and read the "false positives" section.
299.
by topaz0 2y ago
Don't do this.
300.
by topaz0 2y ago
That's not a scare quote. It's just a proposed subtext of the quote. Sarcastic, sure, but no a scare quote, which is a specific kind of thing. (from your linked wikipedia: "... around a word or phrase to signal that they are

More ›