At least in nazi Germany, the state was explicitly designed like that. Most people should never come into contact with the prerogative state and spend their lives in the normative state, as capitalism doesn't work well in a prerogative state. You need to believe that punishment doesn't come arbitrarily in order to follow the rules.

But of course, things are very different in the prerogative state, where actions have unclear consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dual_State

https://www.gva.be/regio/antwerpen/rivierenland/bornem/vlaan...

Edit: why the style is like marketing corp-speak has to do with personalization not working well yet. So the default vanilla style is very corp. Most chatbots allow you to change the system prompt though and that can get rid of a lot of these issues in a lot of chatbots. But it is hard to maintain such a system prompt as the bots change so quickly.

What is true, is that chat models (and by extension agents) have a very characteristic style after their LLM went through post-training. But the pre-trained language model doesn't have that style.

So if you want to write well with an LLM, you could and it is a well understood problem. It is more a matter of that not being of much interest, as it competes with having the model be good for chat interfaces.

How to have a well-aligned, RL'ed, safe or thinking model, which also writes well in long-form, is a bit an open problem. Though presumably agents could do it when they have access to a pretrained model.

The weather in the UK can be very humid, and if you don't have much of a garden, it can be impossible to dry your clothes at times. We've had times where our living room was full of clothes for more than a few days, and it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't really dry anyway.

So we've invested in dehumidifiers and a dryer, and it made our life a lot more comfortable.

I agree that they had a firmware update, but unless they had the operational capacity to update the checks notes freezers of all their customers, that is not a fix. The theoretical and technological aspects of solving a problem are often the easy parts.

It's like if NASA would claim to have a fix for the Opportunity rover on mars to get it operational again. All they need to do is to replace the batteries. Well, that is not a fix if there is no way to actually replace the batteries in practice.

I don't see why the existence of a firmware update would remove the culpability of negligence from the hardware manufacturer.

There is a general idea that beauty in mathematics is about being maximally compressing. Say I have a book with all formally correct logical statements. I could prove everything by truth table, or I can maximally compress my book with all proofs of all statements, and that will make my math beautiful. Because it forces you to reduce everything to a core of very general statements which are powerful compared to the length of the proof.

Math as some kind of condensed crystal from the sea of all possible logic.

There are other ideas of how to do it. The time has come now to just try a bunch and see which ones produce good results.

LLM's are trained on human knowledge and taste. They are actually pretty good at deciding if a conjecture would be found "interesting" by the mathematical community or not.

Note that I am saying LLM, and not chatbot or agent. But even a chatbot can often still reasonably rank a list of mathematical statements by vague properties like "interestingness".

How to RL this is a bit of an open question, but there are interesting conjectures of how to do it.

When the chirality of the product is an autocatalyst to its own chirality. So if your reaction starts off with a little more left than right due to molecular randomness, the left is an autocatalyst which means there is a runaway process and you end up at the end of the reaction with a lot more left than right.

If you repeat the reaction from scratch, it is random if you end up with a left product or a right product. But the product of your reaction is not a 50-50 mix left-right! I.e. you created asymmetry in your solution from purely symmetric solvents.

"Driven by the seductive post-war fantasy that human beings and nature are self-regulating machines -- a cybernetic delusion shared equally by California tech-utopians, holistic ecologists, and free-market economists -- we willingly surrendered political power and moral responsibility to automated, network-driven systems, only to find ourselves trapped in a static, dehumanizing loop that cannot envision an alternative future and leaves the existing, unaccountable hierarchies of power completely intact."

Even the "million years" is an overoptimistic view, and probably reflects the idea that the ecosystem was in some kind of messianic state of equilibrium before man arrived, which happened roughly in the last million years. But even that is broadly a fiction. Ecology is not a system, and it is not stable even without human intervention.

Models are still great at helping us understand the world and are in many ways the best thing we have. The problem is that today we are overly relying on them to make real policy interventions on an ecology (e.g. what is a "healthy" amount of animals to cull or fish) based on an ecosystem, which is just a poor model.

If we could get rid of this idea of "stability" and "equilibrium" in economics and ecology, I would be a happy man.

> Ironically, the experts, the ones building the "wrong" models, tend to be the ones most aware of this

Exactly why I'm here :-)

The concept of "natural equilibrium" is a 1950s cybernetic machine fantasy projected onto the natural world rather than an accurate reflection of ecological reality. We can model the world in the language of system theory, but the models we make there might not have much to say about the real world. We can claim that from system theory it follows that there must be an equilibrium (as somewhat of an expert, I can say that even that is not true) and that if we disrupt the system, things will eventually go back to that equilibrium. And if we don't see it, we just needed to wait longer.

The whole stack of logic is not really build on any proper reasoning. The parallel with economics based on the "homo economicus" is striking, also there you reason from an ideal model and try to make inductive statements about the real world, which in many places directly conflict with observation. The "eco-system" and "natural equilibrium" stem from this approach of applying system theory to ecology, and are ideas which are now _very_ ingrained in western thinking, but which are obviously off.

Here is the start of that second episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgoereMDUJ0

I always thought we would never be able to image something like that. The distances would be too small and the contrast too large to figure something at the resolution we can get on earth. I'll need to read up on how this was done.

Edit: https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-14

It's not just regional dialects and individual birds, I am noticing that the time of the year also matters. Tits sound different in spring, summer and autumn, and so do e.g. robins.

It's a hobby I can recommend to everyone. Whenever I am outside now, I can listen for any faint sound and then make a mental note of all the birds I observed.