Thanks for the link. Reading the rationale for not signing the legislation the governor wrote
> "By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047
establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of
security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized
models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models
targeted by SB 1047 - at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation
that fuels advancement in favor of the public good".
This doesn't make much sense to me. Smaller models might be more dangerous so lets not place safeguards on the larger models because they advance in favor of the public good? Some pretty big assumptions are made here, does this make sense to anyone else?
> We need AI systems that are clear on what they know and what they don't know, and don't "hallucinate" or get lost, before they can be trusted to do things on their own. And ways to keep the AI slaves subservient (the "alignment" problem.) Those are easier problems than ones already solved, but they are not solved yet.
Out of curiosity, why do you think the "alignment" problem is easier to solve than problems already solved?
You're welcome. I must add that I am not a doctor so take the above with the appropriate level of skepticism on your behalf. I am only summarising what I have learned from books and have omitted A LOT of detail.
Recommended further reading
- Pure, White and Deadly (John Yudkin)
- Fat Chance (Robert Lustig)
- Outlive (Peter Attia) contains an excellent and concise synopsis of the mechanisms behind metabolic disease
> In a fire, we see firefighters, that doesn't mean firefighters cause fire. In diabetic patients, we see high glucose level. That doesn't mean eating high GI food causes someone to have diabetes.
This is correct but probably not in the way you think. It is not the glucose in and of itself that is the problem but the level of the hormone insulin circulating around your system that is at the root of Type II diabetes. Glucose and insulin are highly related. Insulin is released by the pancreas to help control the level glucose in our blood.
Virtually no insulin is required when metabolising fats, a small amount is required for protein and a larger amount of insulin is required when dealing with glucose dense carbohydrate based foods. The faster a carbohydrate is metabolised the greater the dose of insulin required to quell the resulting glucose rush in the blood.
What does the insulin do? As a hormone it has many functions. The presence of insulin in the blood signals to all cells to burn sugar (glucose) rather than fats (ketones) for their energy. It prompts the cells in the skeletal muscles to store up glucose in the form of glycogen for later use and it signals the liver to store excess glucose that is not immediately needed. Once the liver and muscles are full then the liver then converts any excess to triglycerides.
Where do the triglycerides go? They get stored as subcutaneous fat all over but largely in the belly (in men) and bum/upper legs (in women). What happens when subcutaneous stores are full? Then the triglycerides are shoved anywhere and everywhere. Fat is pushed into muscle cells as well as the cells in individual organs. The fat molecules present in cells in organs are particularly pernicious (visceral fat) but any cells that contain these triglycerides seems to disrupt the insulin signalling within the cell. This results in insulin resistance i.e., the ineffectiveness of insulin to signal to the cell to take up excess glucose.
When sufficient threshold of insulin resistance is reached, you will get higher blood sugar readings and a higher A1C at which point your doc will say you have prediabetes or full on type II diabetes.
Insulin is the master key variable that unlocks the type II diabetes puzzle. High blood sugar levels are just a symptom. The problem with modern day Type II diabetic care is they consider the high blood sugar as the root problem. So this is treated with meds such as metformin and eventually MORE insulin. Understanding type II diabetes as a disease of too much insulin sheds the disease in a very different light.
Anyway, you are correct, the high glucose level per se is not the cause, but high levels of insulin constantly circulating around your system is the big problem. Of course an effective way of doing that is to continuously eat foods dense in glucose and fructose that are metabolised very quickly e.g., cookies, ice-cream, orange juice etc.
> If we look at the Blue Zone, many people eat mostly carb. So carb/high GI food definitely doesn't cause diabetes
Blue Zone areas such as Okinawa, you do find people eating carb rich foods but they are also high in fibre e.g., root vegetables, sweet potatoes etc. look at books by Robert Lustig to learn more about the importance of fibre in relation to metabolism and diabetes risk.
> It's as if something can finally fill their bandwidth, keep up with their thoughts, and answer those questions in real-time. No wonder they get angry when it's time to put away the iPad - they're engaged at a high level.
Or they are angry because by taking away the iPad you are interrupting their dopamine rush. Whether your iPad + Internet/social media/YouTube is engaging them to fullest maximizing growth potentiation or is simply turning their brains into dopamine chasing crack heads is up for debate. It may be somewhere in the middle and whether the positives outweigh the negatives is individual for each child/person and how and how often they engage with it.
Regardless, I think there are more variables at play than you outline above.
With all the respect that is possible on an anonymous forum like Hacker News but I think you are wrong to not be concerned about a person receiving millions in donation funding (1) to counter racism who defines racism using the same word. It's a serious red flag and with the benefit of hindsight if you read the NY times article linked below there was and is very good reason to be concerned.
The person who asked the question states that he listened to the talk and did not hear any definition of racism. This is why he asked the question. If you're really curious you can listen to the whole talk (2). Not that I would recommend listening to the whole thing.
Agree, it is a complex topic but anyone that suggests that Martin Luthar King Jr. was racist because he claimed that "he would like to be judged not by the colour of my skin but the contents of my character" like Robin DiAngelo has (and Kendi falls into this category because he describes [and defines!!!] racism in the same way that DiAngelo does) is not worth the time in my humble opinion. There is a potentially unlimited number of books to read and we all have limited amount of time so some sort of filter is required. And anyone that thinks in a way that leads them to believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was racist is way off and not worth it.
The reason I'm saying this and why I referenced "post modernist" in my original quote is that these people (Kendi, DiAngelo) are defining racism in a way where the intent of the perpetrator of perceived racism is omitted and ignored. This is why I believe the Kendi definition in the video is no accident, he's trying to define it in way such that the intent of individual or group does not come into the equation. Whether you intend to be racist or not does not matter, you are racist by definition if you have the right (or wrong) colour skin.
Post modernism provides the theoretical underpinning of this claim as this school of though claims that objectivity does not exist, it is a phantom and a harmful one at that. There is merely a collection of different subjective experiences and beliefs and my subjective interpretation is as good as anyone elses. So if I interpret your action as racist then according to post modernist doctrine by definition it is racist, regardless of whether you intend to be or not.
Can't you see the problem here? Can't you see the potential problems that wide spread adoptation of such ideas on racism outlined above that are esposed by Kendi, DiAngelo and others would have on society and how it provides an awful basis for the successful collaboration of large and diverse number of people? Defining people by their race, what's more, trying to solve the problem of racism by focusing more on ones race making it the center of your being is in my opinion a political, social, moral and philosophical deadend. Go ahead and read the book but in my opinion it is a waste of time and possibly even worse than that.
"Humans aren't robots. They aren't flawless. Every prolific public speaker messes up and says something that's complete nonsense while trying to collect the right word."
Competely agree, what's jarring is that he is replying to a simple question asking to define something that is literally the focal point of his intellectual career. It is possible that he just messed up and said something that as you say was 'complete nonsense'. But for me a simple accident is not the most likely reason given the context.
"Surely this isn't the first time he's been asked this question on camera if it's such an important part of his persona. Why this clip? If he consistently defines it poorly, that's one thing. I can't take what could be his worst attempt to define it as normal."
Fair enough, can you source any other examples of him defining racism?
Granted a book can contain much more context that might help the author save face but claiming that the "framing of the video is plainly and severely biased" is tenuous. Why? Because the clip was self contained, It contained 1 question "Please give your definition of racism" and 1 answer that was a definition of racism that was self referential.
You could claim he mis-spoke but c'mon, here's a guy who wrote a book about racism, his full time gig is lecturing primarly around the topic of racism in a University and appears all over the place speaking about it. If he cannot give a straight-up coherent definition of racism off the cuff then there is something seriously wrong. My guess is that this compeletely inadequate definition he gave truly reflects how he thinks and frames the topic of racism and articulating it so briefly it highlights how ridiculous it is.
You may disagree with this interpretation and that's fine but claiming the clip is biased is weak because the clip itself is complete, no editing/cutting and contains 1 very simple question and a complete albeit incoherent answer. Indeed the video contains added text but ignore that, just focus on what he (Kendi) says. That should suffice to support my previous comment.
Once I heard Kendi's definition of racism (1) I could no longer take that guy seriously. He is a social justice warrior public intellectual of the post modernist variety leading me to think he is either innocently and unknowningly deluded or an intentional and nefarious grifter profitting from giving apparent credence to the hard left hardliners. A similar role that Jordan Peterson leverages to make a living arguing or giving theoritical support for the religious right.
"Because ads don't work on me"
I used to think like this also until it dawned on me that I have no idea where the motivations and reasons for my decisions come from. This is because they are almost entirely subconscious. And if they are subconscious we have no real way of knowing whether we are or are not influenced by advertising.
e.g., visited the Heineken Brewery in Amsterdam when I was a late teenager which was basically an advertising museum of all their advertisements going back to the 1950s. Before that day I had never drank Heineken but after that I found myself drinking it regularly for years. If you asked me if I was influenced by advertising I would have said no way. Now I'm more open minded to that possibility hence I use adblock to shield my poor defenceless brain.
To be fair, vaccines can be created in a matter of days now so the benefit of gain of function research to anticipate the virus that will cause the next pandemic is modest at best.
Temper this proposed modest benefit with the potential cost in terms of human adapted viruses being accidentially/intentionally released in the wild given the vagaries of both biolab security protocols in the labs accross the world conducting this kind of research and individual human psychology makes the justification of such research a pretty hard sell.