• 40 Posts
  • 1.64K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle
  • Yeah, there’s not much to be done about sign errors, other than practicing problems until you reach the point where you always make an even number of them.

    You might not need it for this course, but cross products got easier for me once I learned my way around the Levi-Civita_symbol and the Einstein summation convention. This is covered in chapter 10 of Boas’ book; she cites Evett (1966).

    Real analysis is definitely the kind of course that can benefit from an on-ramp. It’s often a student’s first encounter with proofs that involve a lot of machinery: theorem after theorem of epsilon-delta business to establish something that you didn’t doubt in the first place. I think it’s easy to get lost in the details there, particularly if care isn’t taken to explain what confusions these methods were devised to avoid.



  • Bethany Brookshire (who’s an old pal of mine from our ScienceOnline days) reports:

    People are using AI to impersonate real science journalists.

    And one even got PUBLISHED.

    In Science.

    Caroline Williams writes on LinkedIn:

    The person who was impersonating me managed to get an article published in Science, under my by-line. And they got paid for it!

    I’ve seen the pitches (bad), and the email chain between editors who weren’t all that impressed, but googled me and decide to take a punt. When the article came in it was dry, clunky and badly written, but after several rounds of editing they managed to get it into a publishable state. It went online in June and was up until yesterday when it became clear they (and I) had been scammed. […] The whole thing makes me feel sick. I know from my work as an editor that the reputational damage is real. Had I pitched a story to them afterwards they would very understandably have said “Hell no!”. Who has the time to do someone else’s job? They tried “me”, “I” didn’t deliver, so no thank you.

    I have no idea how many more editors out there have me on their ‘do not commission’ list because of this person’s actions. There may also be several scientists who will not want to talk to me because they’ve had a bad experience with the fake one.

    More broadly, if this is a wider scam (and based on what others have told me, I think it is), it is potentially a serious issue for science journalism and journalism in general. And I’m not sure what we can do about that.

    Science has retracted the fraudulent story.







  • Unsurprisingly, the Coxon dipshit who is getting all the press for quitting his cushy AI-industry job is a MIRI fanboy:

    I’ve been associating with rationalists for almost a decade. Their ideas were compelling and you can’t deny their foresight. The founders of every superintelligence effort are all bound up in the rationality sphere. Sam Altman and Greg Brockman used to frequent the MIRI offices.

    If MIRI was Sam Altman’s old stomping ground, and the AI industry is so evil he can’t work in it, isn’t this an argument that MIRI was either a failure or bad all along?

    The way I relate to rationalists is it’s like the bizarre hypertrophied physiques on specialized athletes. In my opinion they have weirdly specialized minds that make them uniquely correct about topics removed from daily experience. These “specialized minds” can also make them off-putting to many people.

    I don’t know if I’d consider myself a rationalist. I am intuitively opposed to polyamory, veganism, and consequentialist intuitions. But I certainly trust them to be correct about factual questions.

    “I’m intuitively opposed to culinary traditions that people have been developing for hundreds of years, but gosh dang it, when they talk about the Machine God torturing a billion simulated copies of me unless I tithe my income to a Harry Potter fanfiction writer, I’m sold!”

    Every time this dorkus is in the news, remember, he’s an absolute wanker.






  • It’s the regurgitation of an insular community’s bizarre beliefs, up to and including sexual fixations, back to that community for unquestioning consumption… a vore-ouboros, if you will.

    Edit to add: I think there’s a concentrated lump of illustrative lesswrong in this passage:

    Also especially popular these days is a ZKP of your own tastes: as almost everyone has developed kinks that put a relatively normal goblin kink to shame, people have become more anxious about unaccepting people finding out. So now you can confirm that you and your girlfriend have a CPU-cuck fetish in common without her ever finding out that you and your grandma both enjoy spankings—amazing!

    Yes, “ZKP” is dropped in without elaboration or definition. But more fundamentally… why, though? This reads like someone has thought too long and yet also too superficially about kink. Why has “almost everyone” developed these bizarre new tastes? What taboos are they transgressing, what vulnerabilities are they exposing, what strictures of life are they seeking to escape? What’s the itch?! And yet look at the fetishes that are specifically named: “spankings” (literally, not figuratively older than Aristotle) and a thinly science-fictionalized kind of swinging. This isn’t a new frontier in depravity; it’s a bachelorette party for normies. The whole thing feels like a product of a mind that’s strongly confined to a narrow understanding. It unhesitatingly accepts the importance of “freaky” sex and goes out of its way to bring that into the story, but it has nothing to say about the subject it has locked upon.