Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47571349

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Looks like not, but would it actually have been shadier, or are we just used to individual users being fucked over?

I loved Apple IIs at schools and libraries as a young child, fell in love with my Mac IIsi at home at the age of 7. Later, at 13, I had a Macintosh-evangelizing web site and mailing list that Guy Kawasaki (Apple's lead evangelist) even subscribed to.

I've been a primary Mac user through the 68k, PowerPC, Intel, and Apple Silicon days, from System 6.0.7 through today. Got an original iPhone and iPad, have upgraded my iPhone every few years since.

The technofeudalism, bugginess, and UI crappiness has me done and looking for the exits, to say nothing of the embrace of Trump. My next laptop won't be a Mac, and my next phone won't be an iPhone.

But the model "shape" and computation graph itself doesn't change as a result of post-training. All that changes is the weights in the matrices.

[Edit: but to be clear, for a pretrained model this probability means "what's my estimate of the conditional probability of this token occurring in the pretraining dataset?", not "how likely is this statement to be true?" And for a post-trained model, the probability really has no simple interpretation other than "this is the probability that I will output this token in this situation".]

Time will tell if the 30% slowdown continues beyond four years, and/or if earlier treatment with more effective amyloid clearance from newer drugs has greater effects. The science suggests it should.

Even negative numbers and zero were objected to until a few hundred years ago, no?

But this is a bit of a straw man. Mathematical models of the technological singularity [1], along with the history of human economic growth [2], are super-exponential: the rate of growth is itself increasing over time, or at least has taken multiple discrete leaps [3] at the transitions to agriculture and industry, respectively. A true singularity/infinity can of course never be achieved for physical reasons (limited stuff within the cubically-expanding lightcone, plus inherent limits to technology itself), but the growth curve can look hyperbolic and traverse many orders of magnitude before those physical limits are encountered.

[1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23928/w239...

[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wcEPEb2mnZ9mtGlkv8lEtScU...

[3] https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/longgrow.pdf

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509211

Points: 1217

# Comments: 233

The redacted words are also redacted in the word index, but the alphabetically preceding and succeeding words are visible, as is the number of index lines taken up by the redacted word's entry, which correlates with the number of appearances of that word.

This seems like rather useful information to constrain a search by such a tool.

The trial followed 25,000 adults from the US and Canada over a year, with nearly one in 100 getting a positive result. For 62% of these cases, cancer was later confirmed.

(It also had a false negative rate of 1%:)

The test correctly ruled out cancer in over 99% of those who tested negative.

The author of that blog post, for whom I am in an excellent position to speak, would point to the "sole intended mechanism" clause in the testable prediction. That is, if the therapeutic's developers do not claim any other intended pathway for clinical benefit from improved BBB integrity other than amyloid−β clearance, then it would count. If not, then it would not count, even if it's plausible or even likely that that's the main pathway by which the benefits are accruing.

However, because this is early preclinical research, it's not likely to reach a late-stage clinical trial within the 12-year window of the author's prediction. Furthermore, in every year there are about a dozen of these preclinical studies that go viral for some reason or other, often having little correlation with how promising the science is. I haven't had a chance to look into this one in detail, so this isn't a negative comment about it, but the base rate of this stuff panning out is low, even if it's good research.

The author of that article would also point out that the concept of "the root cause" isn't terribly well-defined, but that strong evidence points to amyloid pathology as the common entrypoint in all cases of Alzheimer's disease, even if multiple upstream factors (some possibly relating to the BBB) can feed into that, depending on the specific case. Similarly, calorie surplus causes obesity in nearly all cases, but the specific cause of calorie surplus may vary from person to person.

I can't guess what point you're trying to make with a long article that acknowledges the fraud in the beginning, and then rehashes the initial reasons for looking into the amyloid hypothesis. No one is claiming it was stupid to look into the amyloid hypothesis. They are complaining that it hasn't been the most promising theory in quite a long time, and it was fraudulently held as the most promising. Other theories, arguably more promising, are listed throughout your article.

A correction: the article does discuss other hypotheses, in pointing out that they can't account for crucial evidence, whereas there isn't any major evidence the amyloid hypothesis seems to have trouble accounting for, and it thus remains very strong.