I don't think biased information is a total dead end, but the onus is just on judges and politicians to tease out information from more than one angle. And often they don't.

I remember my poli sci teacher on college tried very hard to convince the class of this (with little success).

This is the latter.

See also: stereotype accuracy

Consider the title: Scott Alexander and others have written more clear, philosophically robust versions of a similar argument ("you shouldn't trade your agency for good outcomes").

But that's not the point here. This is the artsy version that's supposed to make you feel the argument.

So did many NLP experts who worked on LSTM, GRU, etc. But transformers empirically won out and here we are.

It will be interesting to see if future model architectures need to take this into account again.

If humans are any indication, one thing we're still missing is efficient movement of information from short term to long term memory. Fine tuning in principle does something akin to this, but not efficiently.

This feels purposefully misleading. Did they manually watch hours and hours of footage, or is this the equivalent of "I searched an online corpus of hundreds of millions of documents" (I Googled it)

How do you square that with data like this?: https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8...

Taking away "free stuff", especially once people have come to rely on it, is a political nightmare no matter the structure.

If you champion it as a politician, there's a very large chance you get all the flack for new developments, but the next guy gets all the credit for affordable housing.

Texas seems to be the only place that actually does it, and I honestly have no explanation for why.

They are better off cooperating, but if one defects first they can screw the other one, so it relies on trust.

The price is artificially high -> there's a ton of demand waiting to be unlocked by the "potential energy" gated behind the unnatural price

Capacity is easy to plan around; get too much and you can just raise the price again.

This would be like, ridiculously illegal. It's also not practical; if you can steal customers, the incentive to undercut is very strong.

You may be more free and independent, but you may also be unable to compete as everyone else easily gains wealth and success. Natural selection doesn't particularly care about freedom of consciousness.

Bleak.

I strongly believe that's why nutrition science is soooo far behind the rest of medicine. There aren't nearly enough serious RCTs (whereas regulations make them abundant for other medical interventions).

It seems the metric is something like "most successful stewards of shareholders' investments" which I guess is interesting. But now I'm tripped up on why the metric would only consider founders rather than CEOs more generally. Imagine Gates didn't start Microsoft, but instead became its CEO a month after some other founder started it and that founder sat on the beach in Hawaii while Gates did well, what he did. The founder would appear on this list but not Gates.

Edit: basically, all my intuitive "this doesn't make any sense" alarm bells are going off, but I think I need someone who really knows what they're talking about to help me understand exactly why, or what would be a more sensical version of this