> But communication is not only, or even primarily, about information. It is about emotion, about establishing our presence and developing or reinforcing a connection. When you ask someone “How are you?” do you honestly care?
I got that far before wincing. What pseudointellectual self-important vapid nonsense is this? How would "emotion" or "establishing a connection" possibly not involve transmission of information?
I didn't. It's physically impossible for any perception of emotion or anything else to travel between organisms without the flow of information. Am I missing something?
I think the point he's getting at is that the point may be the existence of the communication rather than the information given by the communication.
Say a friend is hungry and about to go get lunch. I'm eating a pizza and offer to give them half. They take it, eat, and are no longer hungry.
I might not have given them the pizza because I wanted to end their hunger. I might have given them the pizza to feel more positive toward me in hopes that maybe something more than friendship will develop.
Consider the example he used of asking someone how they are. Usually that isn't meant to actually find out how they are. The person isn't meant to take it as a genuine query as to how they are doing, good or bad. It's a customary greeting with an expected response along the lines of "OK" or "Fine, how about you?" or something like that.
Sure, there is information in that exchange, but it is not the information actually conveyed by the words of the exchange.
So conviction is a "trap door" of evidence weight? If someone is convicted based on evidence that is later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction, this new information does nothing to overturn the conviction?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction"? The sufficience of evidence doesn't randomly change. If you mean that they were convicted based on evidence that shouldn't have been shown to the jury, you can win an appeal on that.
The standard before your convicted is that the jury must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard after you've been convicted is that you must have found substantial new evidence that warrants reconsidering the verdict, or you must show that the original trial was mishandled somehow. "I think the jury was stupid" is not a valid appeal.
Interesting points. The full details of the evidence was not presented to the jury. In that way, it did change. It is more, "the jury was not told the full story."
A lot of rights (like your right to remain silent, your right to a speedy trial, your right to bear arms, your right to vote, your rights to be free from search without reason) have been interpreted only apply up to the point of conviction. So yes, things get MUCH tougher once convicted as many rights no longer apply to you or are stripped from you.
In this case, up until conviction you are presumed innocent and guilt must be proven. Post conviction most of the appeals process is bared if not filed within 14 days of conviction (it used to be forever but then the US Justice system decided woohhh there that's too long and burdensome on the Justice system so 14 days was deemed a reasonable change to the previous 'forever'. A totally reasonable happy middle). After 14 days from conviction really the only relief available is to prove actual innocence, a much higher and more difficult standard to meet.
So falsify and/or misrepresent evidence just long enough to fool a jury. If the ruse is discovered one minute after conviction, who cares? Person's convicted now, doesn't matter?
With the caveat that this is coming from someone with zero training in law: what a load of horseshit.
No, people have 14 days not one minute (previously forever but reduced to 14 days to find a happy balance to ease the load on the judicial system) after conviction in the Feds to file what most Americans' think of when they think of an appeal. After 14 days (previously forever) the appeal process is greatly limited.
Maybe I'm a prude, but this page made me consciously register how pervasive the suffix "porn" has become in decidedly non-pornographic contexts. "EarthPorn", "SpacePorn", etc. are understood to mean gratuitous imagery specifically intended to excite the viewer. (And I just checked: r/PornPorn exists but has been banned)
I would say not much, given regular homeschooling is an intentional choice that self-selects families willing to put in the research and effort to homeschool.
It self-selects some of those families. It also self-selects a lot of families who are paranoid about secular education or fail to understand the value of education at all or of having teachers who know their subjects well and are trained in educational theory and teaching methods.
Probably the homeschoolers on this site largely fall into the former category. The stories you hear from a broader cross section online of home-schooled kids skew heavily toward the latter.
Just so I understand: this HN post consists of a 6-sentence plain English prompt, and a web app that passes the prompt plus presumably raw user input to a black box LLM API? Is there more?
Well, there's also the huge LLM which is probably ~70-100 billions of parameters (just estimates for 3.5 Sonnet), running on a farm of GPUs that cost tens of thousands of dollars. But in summary you're correct :)
Just so I understand: you’re talking about setting up an FTP account, using curlftpfs, and SVN/CVS for Linux users? And even with all these, you’d still need USB drives for connectivity issues? Plus, you're naming it Dropbox? Is there more?
Of course there's more to it but someone taking a picture of the Mona Lisa with their smartphone doesn't add much to it and certainly doesn't commend the same respect as Da Vinci painting it in the first place.
I see what you're getting at, but in your analogy, Leonardo da Vinci (the creative and intellectual driver of the overall work) maps to the black-box LLM behind an API, where the boilerplate web app wrapper maps to the Mona Lisa's constituent oil paints, and perhaps also the backing poplar panel and frame. In other words, wrapping an LLM is like updating the frame around the Mona Lisa.
Welcome to 90% of all AI startups born this year. It's both a testament of how powerful LLMs have become, and how wonderful it is that someone else is footing the bill for the massive amount of resources they consume.
That's ingenious: the technology simultaneously makes and breaks the scam.
The cleverest business name idea that comes to mind is also the one most likely to get this comment deleted: consider the Scunthorpian[1] business name Cuntermeasure.
How did you monitor your apnea before and after your posture correction? And how does one's standing posture affect breathing when lying horizontally -- is it a matter of breathing muscle strength?
Where are you getting the specific values of 6 months and ±2% out 10 years? Genuinely curious to learn more. Maybe back-testing of archived predictions from prior decades against the eventual reality?
> Reminder once again that "accuracy" is irrelevant in the real-world.
Accuracy and other quantitative performance metrics are imperfect for sure, but how else do you propose testing before real-world deployment? How do you propose scalable and feasible testing of human students?
> The practice of medicine does not produce cute little cue-card prompts with 4 options.
Ah, but the New England Journal of Medicine's Image Challenges (designed to test the knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of medical professionals) does.
> It's of less-than-zero value to have an 80% machine accuracy and 75% clinician accuracy if the impact of the machine's mistakes are high risk, unconcerned with the impact of the intervention on the patient, or provide little therauptic upside
But this paper does not study the practice of medicine. It intentionally focuses on performance on one specific, well-known medical imaging diagnostic challenge.
Define a utility across the outcome distribution, eg., profit/quality-adj-life-years-etc.
95% of ML "research" would reveal itself pretty useless if people did this, since the "80-90%" accuracy we're getting is on the "break-even" part of the profit-curve. We're not getting innovation.
It's very rare that frequentist stat modelling on historical data would produce anything, in this sense, suprising -- ie., suprise in the utility domain
I got that far before wincing. What pseudointellectual self-important vapid nonsense is this? How would "emotion" or "establishing a connection" possibly not involve transmission of information?
reply