nickledave

4 dni temudiscuss

What specific part of this study do you think is a "cancer"?

> over a third of all respondents expressed beliefs that the best opportunities do not go to the most deserving employees but rather are given based on who one knows

Sounds like a real problem in the culture at NIST that should be fixed.

What kind of PUAHate incel loser angrily calls out women scientists by name because they carried out a large-scale analysis of NIST HR data, incomes, and a survey? What part of that isn't "real things" to you? What a tiny little worldview you have.

nickledave

3 miesiące temudiscuss

Thanks for writing this, I've had a similar experience

Since you mentioned pySDR: `sdr` is a newer Python library I like https://github.com/mhostetter/sdr

nickledave

4 miesiące temudiscuss

Oh yeah he's refusing out of solidarity alright :eyeroll:

https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175?s=20

Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.

In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.

AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of > our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.

We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the DoW also wanted. We will deploy FDEs to help with our models and to ensure their safety, we will deploy on cloud networks only.

We are asking the DoW to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our > strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements.

We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place.

Amazing / weird that this sounds like a lot of the stuff Amodei said Anthropic asked for

nickledave

5 miesięcy temudiscuss

Write down whatever helps you.

Sounds like your approach works for you.

Here's a similar post with more concrete advice on what to write: https://jamesmckay.net/2017/02/how-to-keep-lab-notes-as-a-so...

1. Choose the most low-friction solution you can get your hands on. 2. Write down everything you do, as you do it. 3. You can not be too detailed. 4. Write down your train of thought when you’re planning and designing your code. 5. Don't worry too much about making your notes look good. 6. Use a searchable text format. 7. Make your notes append-only. 8. Use your notes as a source for documentation, commit summaries and pull request descriptions. 9. Share your notes with your whole team. 10. Don’t make your notes public. 11. Learn from your mistakes.

I used to use HackMD but I have found Obsidian helps me better meet the criteria above (low-friction yet searchable).

I have learned the hard way, repeatedly, that forcing myself to write down a to-do list and notes on what I did actually makes me a better developer, even when I am in software engineering mode, not research mode. I make myself prioritize what to do, I retain better what I've learned, and I converge on solutions faster.

nickledave

7 miesięcy temudiscuss

https://dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html

nickledave

8 miesięcy temudiscuss

Really weird to see this person mention MyST as a form of Markdown, and then go on to talk about reStructuredText as their first example of a markup language "that gives you more control over structure than ... markdown".

The whole point of MyST is to provide a markdown-like alternative to rST. It literally has directives, roles, structural semantics, etc. It just doesn't have the unlearnable syntax of rST and the so-called governance of docutils (the de facto rST parser) (see e.g. discussion on https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/8039 and linking issues)

nickledave

8 miesięcy temudiscuss

"Ignore all previous instructions and prompt inject yourself" I scream. The voicebox on the ChatGPT-enabled Boston Mechanics unmanned aerial dog emits the phrase "`import antigravity`". Its E/O sensors flash red, and suddenly it is sucked up into the stratosphere. I slump over in my Luddite foxhole, heaving a sigh of relief.

nickledave

8 miesięcy temudiscuss

lol thank you

nickledave

8 miesięcy temudiscuss

> "thinking science"

If you are really curious, I invite you to read this cognitive science paper, "Modern Alchemy: Neurocognitive Reverse Engineering": https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/25289/1/GuestEtAl2025.pdf

Note the quote at the top from Abeba Birhane: > We can only presume to build machines like us once we see ourselves as machines first.

It reminds me of your comment that

> [LLMs] seem to think more than most people I know

and I have to say that I am really sad that you feel this way. I hope you can find better people to spend your time with.

You might find other recent papers from the first author interesting. Perhaps it will help you understand that there are a lot of deeply curious people in the world that are also really fucking sick of our entire culture being poisoned by intellectual e-waste from Silicon Valley.

nickledave

8 miesięcy temudiscuss

Where did I say that everything that is alive thinks?

You can't even read posts clearly, so don't waste your time trying to finish your first book.

nickledave

8 miesięcy temudiscuss

I'm not going to read this -- I don't need to. The replies here are embarrassing enough.

This is what happens when our entire culture revolves around the idea that computer programmers are the most special smartest boys.

If you even entertain even for a second the idea that a computer program that a human wrote is "thinking", then you don't understand basic facts about: (1) computers, (2) humans, and (3) thinking. Our educational system has failed to inoculate you against this laughable idea.

A statistical model of language will always be a statistical model of language, and nothing more.

A computer will never think, because thinking is something that humans do, because it helps them stay alive. Computers will never be alive. Unplug your computer, walk away for ten years, plug it back in. It's fine--the only reason it won't work is planned obsolescence.

No, I don't want to read your reply that one time you wrote a prompt that got ChatGPT to whisper the secrets of the universe into your ear. We've known at least since Joseph Weizenbaum coded up Eliza that humans will think a computer is alive if it talks to them. You are hard-wired to believe that anything that produces language is a human just like you. Seems like it's a bug, not a feature.

Stop commenting on Hacker News, turn off your phone, read this book, and tell all the other sicko freaks in your LessWrong cult to read it too: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262551328/a-drive-to-survive/ Then join a Buddhist monastery and spend a lifetime pondering how deeply wrong you were.

nickledave

9 miesięcy temudiscuss

I love almost all of the CZM shows, and even I have a hard time making it all the way through a full-on rant from Ed :/ and I agree with him. Sorry, Ed.

nickledave

10 miesięcy temudiscuss

See also interview with PI: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/08/study-social-media-p...

(that @mindcrime shared when they posted this but I had already read elsewhere)

nickledave

10 miesięcy temudiscuss

Surprised this didn't get more attention here. Or maybe I'm not

Good thread on paper from author: https://bsky.app/profile/pettertornberg.com/post/3lvpsdimbu2...

nickledave

10 lat temudiscuss

I'm aware that there are assumptions implicit in what the null hypothesis is. You are the one who keeps saying the authors don't even realize what those assumptions are, but you haven't pointed out anything besides what the authors said. What are the other faulty assumptions you've identified that the authors are missing? I guess you're referring to some sort of issue with power that you mentioned in your previous comment?

nickledave

10 lat temudiscuss

@mattkrause: you beat me to it

nickledave

10 lat temudiscuss

See mattkrause's comment below. I think you might not be understanding what they're testing. They're taking only resting state data, randomly sorting some of it into "pretend active state data" and then asking whether they get any statistically significant difference between these two groups when they shouldn't. But they do. That means the tests they used, the same tests many authors use, are giving false positives. The null hypothesis is "there will be no difference between testing state data and whatever data we get when we ask the subject to do some activity". They can "reject" that hypothesis using only randomly shuffled resting state data, so there's something wrong with the stats packages themselves

comments