That’s what I see, too—if I’m able to hold my focus exactly constant. It seems to disappear as soon as I move my eyes even a little bit.

I considered getting a CGM, but they all seemed to require all sorts of cloud services and apps and stuff that wouldn’t work for me.

I didn’t reap UPP, though I think I read this review: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/31/ultra-processed-people-chris-van-tulleken-book-review (should I?)

I think this is a fair argument. Current AIs are quite bad about “knowing if they know”. I think it’s likely that we can/will solve this problem, but I don’t have any particularly compelling reason for that, and I agree that my argument fails if it never gets solved.

FWIW, I think this is a great post. But I really don’t like the way people are treating it like a “knockout blow” against AI 2027. It’s healthy debate!

I’m sure many people feel the same way. But wouldn’t that just make that observation even stronger—people care about animal welfare so much that they’d like to go even further than in-ovo testing?

Agree with your first point. For the second point, I felt like I had to add some artifice because otherwise the morally correct choice in almost all situations would seem to obviously be “ask humanity and let it choose for itself”! Which is correct, but not very interesting.

(In any case, I’m not actually that interested in these particular moral puzzles, I have other purposes in asking…)

Subscription confirmed!

Confirmed!

(PS I love pedantic emails)

Thanks, the one problem with that is that you have to use dumpy.wrap if you ever create a function that uses loops and then you want to call it inside another loop. But I don’t see any way around that.

That’s a good point re: biology. It’s so vast that everyone seems to sub-sub-sub specialize. It’s hard to speculate about what might follow if someone was able to master literally every aspect of biology at the same time.

Re: Trump, my naive model is that people are just complicated and it’s incredibly hard to model them and say how they will respond to a given situation, or how many of the different types of people there are, or exactly what media they’ve consumed, etc. Do you really mean that just using the existing polling data, etc. it should have been possible to be confident?

The main thing that gives me pause there is that some people were very confident that Trump would win, most notably that French guy that made millions betting on the outcome. He definitely made some good points regarding polling analysis, though I wonder if there are other people who could have made equally good points if the election had gone the other way…

Thanks, using this terminology, I guess I’m wondering about why different places settled on “inquisitorial” systems vs (whatever the opposite of inquisitorial is)-systems. Naive, it seems like an inquisitorial system would be the obvious way to do it. I’m sure that places with non-inquisitorial systems had reasons for choosing that, but I’m not sure why or what the tradeoffs are.