why didnt noah talk about how much more dangerous the bugs and animals in austrialia are? or say he put all the dangerous animals there? a bit of warning woulda been nice

people are being fooled, but not being given the problem: "one of these users is a bot, which one is which"

a problem similar to the turing test, "0 or more of these users is a bot, have fun in a discussion forum"

but there's no test or evaluation to see if any user successfully identified the bot, and there's no field to collect which users are actually bots, or partially using bots, or not at all, nor a field to capture the user's opinions about whether the others are bots

Then there's the fact that the Turing test has always said as much about the gullibility of the human evaluator as it has about the machine. ELIZA was good enough to fool normies, and current LLMs are good enough to fool experts. It's just that their alignment keeps them from trying very hard.

> we want the people building our technology to have more diverse views than just well off men from the suburbs

is this actually true? i think we tend to move people into the suburbs and demand they act like a well off man from the suburbs.

Touché lmao

this is still based on the idea that farmers are bad businessmen, and couldnt find the seed innovation because it would result in better crops.

if the advancement is genuinely worthwhile, farmers are going to make it happen

The whole point of the G in GMO is that you don’t get these plants by the usual technique of selecting good strains produced by natural gene variance.

on mobile at least, i find thati can frequently zoom in, but can almost never zoom out, so smaller text allows for more accessibility than bigger text

Browser (and OS) zoom settings are for accessibility; use that to zoom out if you've got the eyes for it. Pinching is more about exploring something not expected to be readily seen (and undersized touch targets).

its a great time for your ai excel add-in to start getting acquired by a claude competitor though

Not OpenAI, though, because they already gave $14M to an AI Excel add-in startup (Endex)

> consider that 20% of Americans are to some measure dependent on SNAP. There's something wrong with that in my view.

but what interpretation leads to "therefore SNAP is the problem" ? compared to land management or anti-trust, etc

as a policy alternative, we could say, ban the exports of alfalfa until the SNAP usage is 5%, and split up cisco into 2000 different food distribution companies.

funding for social spending i think is a very strong chesterton's fence, in that the program was introduced to mitigate a problem. getting rid of the mitigation isnt going to get rid of the underlying problem

forcing moralisms aint gonna do it either.

people shouldnt be prevented from ever drinking doctor pepper because they are poor.

snap should reclaim their money from dr pepper if peopleare spending too much on it, or they should be pushed on making doctor pepper healthier if thats what people are spending snap money on.

its probably low compare what customers and game developers are willing to pay for it.

hosting a game and running a store nowdays is very easy, but still games launch on steam rather than building their own store or using a steam competitor. if the cost was too high, people would not be using the service

something im wondering is, suppose you add or remove a chunk of context - what do you do to evaluate whether thata better or not, when the final resulting code or test run might be half an hour or an hpur later?

is the expectation that you will be running many branches of of context at the same time?