> Participants were recruited from the Essex University Economics Lab sample pool. ... The median participant was a graduate student with two years of work experience.
Hard to see how econ grad students play-acting boss says much about the kinds of long-term relationships / group dynamics that appear in the wild.
I was trying to mark the word wisdom as a designated 'term' instead of just the colloquial word. Sorta like how people sometimes write "$wisdom". I suppose single quotes would have worked better. I've never quite internalized the fact that some people parse double quotes as scare quotes, even though I've gotten that feedback from a couple people before...
I think of intelligence as all the stuff that is easy to say if it's 'right' or not, such as picking up knowledge, producing features, etc. Whereas wisdom is all the stuff that is harder to point at but is nevertheless valuable: making good decisions, intervening in things when it matters, fighting for things that are important, picking the better of two strategies without knowing the right answer, not getting bogged down in details, etc...
People who are intelligent but not as wise will do lots of "good" work but things will get worse over time. (Picture: large quantities of code that get things done but are a slog to read; giant architectures that feel work but feel unnecessarily complicated) People who are wise but not as intelligent will make things better over time, but make mistakes or be slow or struggle or be sloppy (Picture: small surgical changes that make everyone's lives better; making types of bugs impossible.) They also complain a lot if they feel disempowered to fix things. People who are intelligent and wise (and, I suppose, motivated) are the 10x engineers, the people that make something "amazing" instead of "fine".
Wisdom largely seems to require a combination of: (a) experience, so your intuitions are good, (b) confidence, such that you trust and give weight to your intuitions instead of doing what you're told, and (b) conviction, such that you care about doing a good job and will change things in order to do a better job, rather than trying to conform to norms around you.
It is very hard to apply wisdom to work if you can't see a reward that would come from caring more---it requires either a personal satisfaction from doing good work or a social reward from the people around you or some sort of long-term career benefits. Most places seem to go out of their way to avoid anything like those.
Thanks for the links!
Seems like we don't need to mask prior to the first compare, since the low order bits only matter if the high order bits are equal (in which case, we can also safely compare lower bits). Or am I missing something?
bool IsEveryComponentGreaterThanOrEqual(uint16_t x, uint16_t y) {
int rv = x >= y;
auto xg = x & 0x07E0; auto yg = y & 0x07E0; rv &= xg >= yg;
auto xb = x & 0x001F; auto yb = y & 0x001F; rv &= xb >= yb;
return rv != 0;
}
> Tesler's Theorem (ca. 1970). My formulation of what others have since called the “AI Effect”. As commonly quoted: “Artificial Intelligence is whatever hasn't been done yet”. What I actually said was: “Intelligence is whatever machines haven't done yet”. Many people define humanity partly by our allegedly unique intelligence. Whatever a machine—or an animal—can do must (those people say) be something other than intelligence.
I read “attaches all these numbers to each other” to mean concatenation, not addition. Presumably you’d want to encode a “next book” token too.
This kind of compression is known as arithmetic coding. It does work.
The standard theoretical technique for encoding a list of numbers as a single number is Gödel encoding. It can be applied as many times as you like—e.g. to encode a list of lists of numbers, or a list of lists of lists of numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering
Sure, but Gödel encoding is pretty much purely a theoretical exercise. I'm not sure anyone anywhere has ever practically manipulated Gödel-encoded expressions in a useful way. His original scheme also has the problem that prime factorization is rather computationally challenging--it is after all the basis of the RSA cryptosystem.
Whereas Arithmetic encoding is actually practical, extensively used, and a direct analogue to the stick.
I'm aware of arithmetic encoding and it is definitely the most compelling example of encoding arbitrary data with a single number. On the other hand, there is a lot more to arithmetic coding than the ability to encode lists of numbers—all the considerations involving the context of each symbol, which are essential to the process of compression. I just felt that it might be helpful to give an example which didn't implicate all that complex compression apparatus.
On the leaderboard I'd like to see code size vs cycles in a 2D plot with the Pareto front highlighted.