I think that humans are the ultimate arbiters of quality for humans.

Nothing that is non-human can make that determination because anything that is not human (an LLM) is at best just a really good model. Since all models are necessarily wrong by definition, they can never get it right all the time. When determining what’s good for humans, it is only us that can figure that out.

I also came back to ZAMM when wrestling this question. There must be something there if we have all independently coming to similar conclusions.

As an aside, this is a true meme.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the West is that these countries will, with time, align philosophically against the West's enemies. They are concerned with preservation of their regimes and their ways of life. They recognize that they have no foundational shared story with the West (religious or otherwise), and that without such shared origins and culture, Western people will not fight to save Arabs when resources get tight. So what do they do? Hedge their alliances so that they always have someone to turn to.

I also noticed that closing your eyes for a while on a perfectly clear day, you could notice the blue tint on everything outside.

You also lose color vision when oxygen deprived (hypoxia). As oxygen returns, it returns beginning in the center of your fovia and expands outward like a jagged, slightly asymmetric ripple, color returning with it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/tech/the-nsa-buys-americans-i...

Either way, this seems like a great opportunity to hijack this post by giving an excerpt from Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values by Robert Pirsig.

"Two kinds of logic are used, inductive and deductive. Inductive inferences start with observations of the machine and arrive at general conclusions. For example, if the cycle goes over a bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over a long smooth stretch of road and there is no misfiring, and then goes over a fourth bump and the engine misfires again, one can logically conclude that the misfiring is caused by the bumps. That is induction: reasoning from particular experiences to general truths.

Deductive inferences do the reverse. They start with general knowledge and predict a specific observation. For example, if, from reading the hierarchy of facts about the machine, the mechanic knows the horn of the cycle is powered exclusively by electricity from the battery, then he can logically infer that if the battery is dead the horn will not work. That is deduction.

Solution of problems too complicated for common sense to solve is achieved by long strings of mixed inductive and deductive inferences that weave back and forth between the observed machine and the mental hierarchy of the machine found in the manuals. The correct program for this inter-weaving is formalized as scientific method."

I think a lot of us have this broad, seemingly undefinable feeling of anxiety. I think part of that feeling comes from the algorithmically controlled feeds that bait our amygdala. Another part of that anxiety comes from consuming news that has nothing to do with our local lives. Political news stokes your fears because it makes your more likely to vote, so what you're experiencing is likely ads and "news" stories designed to stir up your emotion to encourage you to go to the polls.

In the past year, I have severely reduced most of my consumption of national news, instead focusing on local events... things that effect my life daily. I have noticed a significant reduction in my anxiety levels. I also deleted all social media except for messaging apps to talk with friends and families. That has been great too.

Another issue is that simulators do not duplicate the somatosensory and vestibular system perceptions a pilot feels when flying. These systems feed a great deal of information to a pilot's brain, not as much as the visual system, but enough that transitioning to an environment where there is no "seat-of-the-pants" feel takes a moment to get used to.

Perhaps the integration of LLMs could help bolster the realism for simulators, allowing pilots to practice CRM. An LLM could also be used to simulate a co-pilot or flight attendant. Interesting.

There is no "healthy laziness." This is a cynical term that does a disservice to leaders who skillfully practice with a light touch.