legend

It would. Another thing would be to just have more tutorial bubbles or something that will pop up when you start explaining what you should do and why. E.g., "Here is you home timeline, unlike other social media, your home timeline does not include any content that you haven't followed. The best way to to get more content you care about it is to follow *hashtags* so that you get content you care about even from people you don't follow. Would you like to add some hashtag interests now?" And "Here is the federated timeline. This timeline..." Etc. I'm sure someone who actually works on UX could come up with better ideas. But right now it's just like "Here it is." Yeah that does seem like a problem. They should absolutely implement E2EE to messages to avoid this scenario. (They will likely have to change how messages work in general to do it, but they should just do it!)

TBC, I didn't mean that as a criticism of you! It's a failing of Mastodon's UX that it has thoroughly confused people about how it works. If you spend some time with it, you can get the hang of it of better, but that barrier they've put between people and using it effectively may prevent it from becoming more popular. Which is a shame because there are a lot of good ideas in it that *could* be solved with better UX.

You don't need to sign up to different feeds. It's just it works differently than anyone expects

I think the biggest problem Mastodon has is your home timeline works *very* differently from other social media. Other social media just shoves all kinds of stuff in your home timeline. In Mastodon, it's *only* content you follow. You have to go to the "local" or "federated" timeline to get aggregate data. But those timelines have two problems. 1) It just doesn't refresh as smoothly because of the nature of the operation it's doing. 2) There is no curation on those aggregate timelines at all. It's really just the live dump of what's happening. There is, however, a good way to make your home timeline much better. Don't just follow people, follow hashtags. That makes your home timeline include content from people you don't follow, but whom are tweeting tooting about stuff you care about it. It also is quite nice because it doesn't feed you the viral social war drama that twitter does. However, the fact that it's different and requires some upfront effort to get a good timeline is probably going to turn people off at first and I'm not sure it will survive that.

To answer that question you would have to formally define what you mean by each of those terms! Although the very act of formalizing it kind of builds in an answer to "yes, rationality is better" because once you define the terms, the "rational" optimization is always what works best, and therefore it cannot be that what is rational is ever worse definitionally! But let's maybe ask a slightly different question that yields more insight than a question doomed to favor "rationality." We'll ask "does emotional and intuitional reason have benefits toward humans acting effectively?" Where "effectively" can mean optimizing any standard set of human values for the world (health, pleasure, social connectedness, societal success, etc.). The answer to that is yes, absolutely, emotional and intuitional reasoning can be beneficial in many ways. The crux of the issue here is even if we could perfectly describe the decision problem for maximizing some human's value (which is a big ask in itself), that doesn't mean any person has any hope of perfectly solving it nor any hope of having time to get close to perfectly solving it before they have to make a decision (The world keeps going whether you've reached a decision or not). Ultimately, we have bounded cognitive resources and bounded time to make decisions that are far less than we'd need to perfectly solve the decision problem. Given such constraints, heuristics that tend to work on average, but not all the time, are a necessary evil. Even in modern AI built in simulations where the problem is fully controlled we have to rely on reactive heuristics. These days, modern AI methods typically learn these heuristics over time, but they're reactive heuristics all the same. In game theoretic problems (read: social systems), these heuristics are even more critical because game theory introduces a huge mess in other ways I won't get into here (but I have published some work in collaboration with psychologists on the evolution of decision heuristics around moral dilemmas and it's fun and mind warping). With that in mind, note that many human emotions and intuitions are ones that exist in us because evolution has done the work of finding good heuristics that tend to work quite well on the space of problems evolution tuned humanity for. So yay, our intuitions and emotions can be useful and even necessary! But there is a catch there. The operating environment of humans has changed *far* faster than evolution could tune for. Most of our intuitions are outright bad for reasoning about the world as it is now. Science came into being precisely because our intuitions are so bad in this new extended world in which we live. If our intuitions were always good, no one would have ever bothered with developing science. So as far as as philosophy of life I think the best we can do is be cognizant about where and when we are employing heuristics and be aware of when those are more or less likely to be useful. We'll make mistakes, but being cognizant of it gives us a route to correct them and we can lean on the sheer population of people and time of civilization to help reach better solutions we can adopt. I can probably get a bit deeper than that, but I'll refrain from making this post any longer than it already is

Repeating that it’s a argument doesn’t make it so You might say it is if you define the word “argument” very loosely, but I would hope from context that I’m clearly not using the word in that loose way. But who said anything about hand waving away human nature? My first response is how people’s penchant for catch phrases is a failing of humanity and that if later if you expect a catch phrase to be persuasive to someone you must not think very much of them! That’s a pretty direct statement about my displeasure with the way people operate, not a refusal to believe that some do operate that way!

I’m not sure what aspect of my post that’s responding to? I’m not opposed to rallies and protests. I’m saying their goal and usage of catchphrases is categorically different from persuading someone to some position and consequently not subject to my criticism of replacing arguments with catchphrases.

I am and you’re welcome!

Learning from human feedback with experimentation is a great way for an AI to go beyond pure mimicry for sure. The biggest barrier is it's hard to get enough data of human feedback. However, ChatGPT (pure language model) works by fine tuning from human feedback about what good responses are, so this is certainly an avenue of active research. Simple feedback modeling still has serious limitations, but it is a step in the right direction. (It also starts breaking into reinforcement learning, which is my topic of interest and incidentally the best AI topic )

I'd say that's some of what artists do, but hardly the bulk of it. At least not for the talented ones. I'd say the best artists are trying to express something they feel, and those expressions take new form depending on the circumstances of modern life that motivate it. It's no secret that I don't think there's anything "special" about humans that cannot be captured in sufficiently advanced machines. But to pretend that what these current AI models do is the same as what people do is to misunderstand and cheapen how complex intelligence and human cognition is. If all AI tech amounted to was variations on this current form of generative models, it would be a tragedy and great disappointment and I'd consider the entire AI project a colossal failure.

I don't think rallies or protests are meant to be persuasive. They're meant to be a show of force and express dissatisfaction with the state of affairs that they will oppose and fight against. They are meant to be a force that has to be addressed. The closest they get to persuasion is to be an entry to raise awareness about problems that onlookers may have missed or missed being as being as substantial as they are.

Poppycock. If you don't get it let me know.

In this very thread you have people questioning the validity of the catchphrase and it's not persuading people. I don't think you should expect it to either, because, again, it's not an actual argument. But if you are expecting people to be swayed by a catchphrase you must not think very highly of them

I’ve responded to his bad takes before, but he never responded. And visiting his reply threads is vomit inducing from all the Musk-like fanboys he has (That part isn’t really his fault but annoying all the same!)

“My body my choice” isn’t an argument. It’s an overly simplistic declaration with no supporting reason that happens to sound nice aesthetically. Declaring your bodily autonomy is sacrosanct is similarly not an argument. It’s at best an overly broad conclusion lacking the argument that gets you there.

I'd just like to say that catchphrases are not principled arguments and humanity's penchant to substitute them for arguments is a failing of the species.

Yeah I have mixed feels about it. I won't begrudge anyone for deciding to change the direction of their career. If he wants to move into AI research that's fine. But I will begrudge him for doing it badly while acting like an authority I can tell you with certainty that integrating modern AI into game agent design will happen in the future whether he helps or not though! So there's that

That, unfortunately, I'm less enthusiastic about. Carmarck still has a pretty naïve view of AI, but that hasn't stopped him from making any number of bad AI takes. The kind you would expect of a college student who thinks they know what they're talking about because they're in a CS program. Positioning his company as an "AGI" company with goals to achieve "AGI" soon also really rubs me the wrong way and just further fuels the VC tech bro hype machine. He's indisputably a great programmer, but has a strong tech bro side to him when it comes to AI. I'd be happier if he either focused on making more computationally efficient AI tech (which he'd be great at), or do a better job understanding the research field before acting like an authority on it with bad takes and misguided research directions.

It's about fucking time!

"Artists" are not united by any core ideology. It's an incredibly diverse group of people of all kinds of different politics and philosophies with people that evolve with the times as much as anything. As such, I'm not sure it's fair to attribute to the whole group any position like whether they were for or against factory automation. I do also think artists have a bit more of a claim in this case. These AI tools could only be made because of the direct work of artists. But these artists never consented nor were compensated for their work that was crucial to make the tool. It's pretty fucked to me to just take their work and then profit from it. (Models that are never used for any profitable venture like research seem like fair game to me though.) I'm certainly not inherently against distribution matching AI tools for art and I think artists themselves will ultimately benefit from it, but only *if* we build proper laws, regulations, and systems around it. In fact, properly compensating artists to help tune these models would be to everyone's benefit.

Oh. Well nevermind then. I thought I heard the console performance was solid, but maybe that was with RT off

Yeah I think there's just no excuse for this oddity and I'm hoping they fix it. It sounds like in an inverse of events, the console versions were better optimized this time!

Nope, same location!

Oof. I had done some of the suggestions to let me boot with the steam overlay for FPS. That let me test some things out. Basically, any ray tracing is almost entirely binary in performance. Ray tracing shadows is basically the only thing that makes a difference turning individually off. Otherwise changing no other settings (individual ray tracing elements or other graphics features) will dent the performance at all as long as ray tracing is on. I was, however, getting low 60s to upper 50s FPS though, which with G-sync wasn't that bad. So I was reasonably happy. However, I decided to try updating my graphics driver to the latest to see if there were any optimizations for it, because if it pushed it above 60 more consistently that would be nice. After updating my driver, it's running at mid 30s - 40s! And much more stuttering! The driver update made the performance substantially worse!! So uh. that sucks. I think I'm going to hold off for a patch. Something aint right here.

I can see that. I think the key regardless is whether the bar is 100% and perhaps you can get it there for some checks even if you have a negative point. I.e., they probably have a "mini point total to succeed" and if you pass that threshold, the bar displays 100% and you succeed; fail otherwise.