- Job security is getting lower.

- Insurance is getting spotty, will this be covered? Maybe?

- Companies are testing dynamic pricing.

- The rise of prediction markets.

Eventually the economy is going to be constantly gambling on our lives. Every ounce of certainty is a potential money making opportunity.

It’s also subjective and dependent on the persons values, beliefs, etc.

The broader point is that self-interest is not purely logical because humans are not purely logical beings.

Looking under a microscope at one specific instance and saying “eh it’s not that bad, you’re overreacting” is disingenuous or at least putting your head in the sand.

I’m so tired of “there’s nothing preventing”, and “humans do that too”. Modern AI is just not there. It’s not like humans and has difficulties with adapting to novelty.

Whether transformers can overcome that remains to be seen, but it is not a guarantee. We’ve been dealing with these same issues for decades and AI still struggles with them.

If doctors gave mothers a vaccine that prevented down syndrome, at a high level, that would be the same as putting an anti-down syndrome drug in the water supply.

The point of the example is not about whether putting things in the water supply is good or bad.

Saying “but they’re happy” in this context is implying that we shouldn’t try to cure it, which is obviously ridiculous.

If I told you the chemical gave people down syndrome you’d probably think I am evil.

Whenever these topics come up there’s always people saying things like “but what if people like it?” And I can’t help but wonder, really? Are we really having this conversation? The answers are obvious so why pretend they’re not?

I don’t believe anybody actually thinks this way.

Shallow taste is stuff like popular trends that come and go, and hating the taste of beer until you’ve had it a few times (not saying everyone has to like beer, that’s not the point).

Deeper taste is more like your deeply held cognitive biases. Like a current of a river or the valleys cut into a mountain. It’s the shape of your cognition that determines how information flows through your brain.

Deeper taste is heavily connected to you and your identity. It’s part of who you are. I think most people would agree that parts of themselves change very slowly, and some not at all.

I know there are parts of me that feel the same as when I was a child. To deny the existence of taste is to deny the existence of a “you” that is different from others.

The process you’re describing is humans extending our collective distribution through a series of smaller steps. That’s what the “shoulders of giants” means. The result is we are able to do things further and further outside the initial distribution.

So it depends on if you’re comparing individual steps or just the starting/ending distributions.

React itself is a frontend-agnostic library. People primarily use it for writing websites but web support is actually a layer on top of base react and can be swapped out for whatever.

So they’re really just using react as a way to organize their terminal UI into components. For the same reason it’s handy to organize web ui into components.

Chess engines don’t grow on trees, they’re built by intelligent systems that can think, namely human brains.

Supposedly we want to build machines that can also think, not just regurgitate things created by human brains. That’s why testing CoT is important.

It’s not actually about chess, it’s about thinking and intelligence.