(I'm going to skip over some basic stuff, and use some generalities)

Each Cone in the eye responds to a range of frequencies. This means that things that unless it's on the extreme low, or high, end of the frequencies that the human eye can discern you are going to have two, or all three, Cone types responding. The strength of those responses is what your brain uses to interpret the color that you see.

The real problem is that out in space there is no attenuation of sunlight, it's bright. Super crazy bright. It basically overloads all of your Cones, and Rods, all at once, there is no way for your brain to find a signal of "oh there's more higher wavelengths here so interpret bluer than normal" because all of the signals got maxed out. If you max out all of the signals, you get white. It doesn't matter that in absolute terms there's more blue, the lower and mid frequencies are also maxed out.

[0] https://thecodelesscode.com/

In 4:3 it looks good and like the original airing show, in 16:9 any non-digital/composite shot looks freaking fantastic. But once you get to any digital or composite shot it takes a nose dive in quality.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Saying that the first book alone doesn't make any assertions about morality is somewhat hilarious. The baron is queer coded, so too is feyd, the "good guys" are strong manly men. Even just the idea that "hard times make strong men, .." is a morality in and of itself.

I never said I was uneasy about the idea of a white savior, you are reading far too much into my beliefs and ideals. I would also appreciate that you do not project onto my any of your imaginings of my own beliefs. You do not know me.

That said, if you have only read the first books you truly are getting only one small facet of the story that Herbert was trying to tell. A lot of what is laid out in the first novel is inverted and overturned by the 3rd and 4th novels.

Finally, you have written a lot about one book out of a long series of books. I would suggest that, like your wont to project some sort of belief onto me, you, too, are projecting too much upon just the first entry of a much, much, larger epic.

If you take the first book alone you're left with only one facet of a much grander story. You're also left with the idea a white savior story that says might makes right, which really isn't what was going on at all.

Dune's a wild ride man!

I do agree that to get the full usage out of an LLM you should have some familiarity with what you're asking about. If you didn't already have a sense of what a dosage is already, why wouldn't 100mcg be the right one?

Given the pushes for political truths in all of the LLMs I am uncertain if they would be implemented even if they existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

A lot of what you're talking about is the ability to detect Truth, or even truth!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leX541Dr2rU

0: $59,320 for the 25-26 year according to their website.

Just a small, quick, bit of review. Does this thing make logical sense? Does it smell of any logical fallacies? What are the priors, or assumptions, that the argument is making?

I am not a fan of Scott Alexander, but he does at least give a fair amount of thought to his arguments and conclusions. However that doesn't mean much if the premise is flawed or his priors are miss calibrated. This goes for anyone. Just because the person you're looking up to has well reasoned arguments doesn't mean they're correct.

Aquinas started from the position that god exists and went from there. And while his arguments are really well reasoned and logical, they only make sense if you accept his priors.

Any given argument makes sense if your priors start in the right place for them. Euclidian Geometry works great, but if you throw out/modify the parallel postulate you can get wildly different answers for what makes sense. You can craft crazy mathematical worlds if you tweak ZFC, throw away the axiom of choice and some different stuff starts to happen.

Anyways, I hope you stop glazing scott, take everything you read with a grain of salt, and think for yourself.

Too many times I've used LLMs for tasks at work and some of the answers I've gotten back are subtlety wrong. I can skip past those suggestions because the subject is one I'm strong/experienced in and I can easily tell that the LLM is just wrong or speaking nonsense.

But if I didn't have that level of experience, I don't think I would be able to tell where the LLM was wrong/mistaken.

I think LLMs are great for learning new things, but I also think you have to be skeptical of everything it says and need to double check the logic of what it's telling you.