I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What it sounds like you're saying is that it is possible for processing to make a product unhealthy, and unlikely for processing to make a product more healthy.
What other people are saying is that this communicates almost nothing. What it does is allow people who are doing very bizarre things to food to hide among people who are doing pretty well known, well-tested, and ancient things to food. It's literally an argument to ignore the specifics, it's an argument for ignorance.
Certainly your first sentence is true. And you're right; what you said you think I said, communicates almost nothing. If it were what I were saying, it would be an argument for ignorance.
These are both absolutely the wrong ways to look at it.
> 1. Ultra processed food is a media hype -> totally dismiss it
Don't let the media decide what you think, whether you want to go against them or you want to support them. Your faith or distrust in some media organization or segment has no effect on the truth value of some statement being made. They are adding commentary.
> 2. Ultra processed food is often used without proper classification and would be more useful to have well defined sub categories
Don't come up with words and then struggle to define them, or worse, argue with people about their definitions. Language is a tool. Discuss actual things, and use words to label those actual things. If they do not offer a definition for "ulta-processed food," do not help them. It is not up to you to come up with categories of food to fit the case they are making about "ultra-processed food." It is up to them to associate their health theories with the food they are trying to classify within them, both statistically and with guesses about the mechanisms.
Don't feel like because one can have a discussion that it makes sense to have one. If I make up a word, you shouldn't waste time debating its meaning, you should just ask me to give you a clear definition of how I'm using it.
> However, they have not sucked on them like candy and swallowed the contents 16 hours a day.
Swedish Snus has been around a long time, isn't linked to cancer at all, and has no bad effect on your teeth and gums. Snus is actually associated with vast drops in cancer rates, because it usually replaces smoking. Snus is also no-spit - I think the difference between it and chewing tobaccos is that they are roasted and that snus is steamed. Makes a huge difference healthwise.
I don't have anything to say about the synthetic stuff, I'm not familiar. It's a bizarre industry that cropped up during a period where snus was trying to get into the market and the tobacco companies were trying to keep them out.
Somehow, cigarette companies lobbied to get snus caught up in cigarette taxes, even without the actual health risk. They were only even required to put the weakest possible warning on the package, because the health effects of snus have been well-studied and they're not associated with anything serious, except for nicotine addiction itself (which makes it a good substitute for smoking.)
The big US cigarette companies marketed a few horrible "snus" lines, with the marketing and goal that they would be a replacement product for when a smoker couldn't take a smoke break, and they were weak. I assume these synthetic lines developed to avoid taxes in some way by pretending to be a sort of medical product rather than a tobacco product, like a nicotine gum.
Snus is actually a better Nicorette, I suspected that the nicotene replacement industry had something to do with the sabotage of snus. Snus is cheap, free of health consequences, and doesn't lead you to associate something as addictive as chewing with nicotine consumption. Snus just quietly sits behind your lip, the minis are undetectable by the people you're interacting with, and they smell nice so they don't ruin your breath. Why would you choose a more expensive synthetic alternative?
> Around COVID times many top universities experimented with removing test requirements from admissions, under an argument largely related to equity. It's been a failure everywhere, with many, if not most, universities already reversing it.
It's the universities that have failed. They've restricted admissions to a set of people who would learn no matter what the schools did, which is what makes them lazy.
When confronted with a set of students who haven't been provided with an enormous amount of childhood reading material, and the time, encouragement and social acceptance to indulge in it (the most faithful test predictor is childhood pleasure reading, the next best is parental income), they fail horribly.
The purpose of elite colleges for students is credentialism and networking, the purpose for the schools themselves is to force cultural conformity onto smart or extremely pressured students. They generally just tell you to go learn things by yourself. They have no particular insight into teaching, because they are supplied with students who don't need to be taught.
Can you cite a source for the claim about "most faithful test predictor"? I'm genuinely curious. I would think high school GPA would be more predictive.
High school grades are not evenly applied, and sometimes heavily inflated. Eliminating that variable is the whole point behind taking a standardized test.
Pretty sure that's what NSO Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group) is. Israeli intelligence could also just insert vulnerabilities in cheap garbage (or even more expensive garbage like this) for NSO or NSO-like Israeli orgs to take advantage of. We know they sell pagers.
> Should not there be a tax to offset the "frictional" unemployment?
Absolutely not. That's like taxing shovels because people were digging with their hands. The result is just more people having to dig with their hands, the fact that 7/8ths of people who now dig with their hands will starve because shovels have been introduced is a choice that we are making. We are choosing not to feed them.
Creating an unnecessary pretense so that they can suffer before they are fed is psychotic. Pay them to go to school or to show up to healthcare appointments, not to do work that can be automated away.
> the fact that 7/8ths of people who now dig with their hands will starve because shovels have been introduced is a choice that we are making. We are choosing not to feed them
The unfortunate truth of western economic history is that capital does not willingly share its profits unless forced to (by government or labor).
The core point here is about power.
Assuming AI takes off and automates large sections of the economy, who gets to have control over those entities?
It seems a bit premature to identify the current major AI labs as inevitably being the ones to benefit.
But I am sympathetic to the idea that having the public as a (mostly) silent partner, both in profits and control, is prudent.
Where it gets dangerous is how "the public's" equity share is represented and by whom.
F.ex. I'd be vociferously opposed to the current kleptomaniacal US administration being able to wield 50% control
> And the ones spanning generations were completely fair game.
No they weren't. Copyright at this point covers things for at least half a dozen generations back, and is intentionally made annoying enough that it is difficult to find out what is covered and what isn't. LLM companies didn't bother with any of that (they just pirated like your average online 13 year old), meanwhile archive.org got sued for pulling the music off ancient wax cylinders.
Clean up and dramatically shorten, restrict, or even eliminate copyright, and we can start talking about what's fair game or not. People were afraid to sing "Happy Birthday" in movies for probably 80 years, and the corporations that own all IP made it very clear at the time that they preferred for the status of "Happy Birthday" to remain unclear, and would send you a scary letter if you used it.
> probably going to depend on whether AI is a transformative use.
It's probably going to be entirely political, and decided through corruption. It's obviously a mechanical transformation. If rap DJ's got sued for cramming songs full of 80 extremely manipulated samples that you'd need a forensics expert to trace, and all sampled music had to revert to a form where they'd license a single song and re-release it with somebody rapping over it, LLMs are a violation. DJ's were doing an absolutely creative translation, and LLMs are not creative, they are Δ-following pinball machines.
I am repulsed by this because it will obviously be the vehicle through which tax money will be directed into Altman & Co's pockets, but I also understand that they will get bailed out whether the government gets a share or not.
As long as they are voting shares, I don't see an increase in the harm. I'd like to see a legislative framework about how that ownership is handled that allows Congress and regulatory agencies to make decisions restricting how these companies will operate, but without any regard to the constitutional rights of the corporate persons or their owners.
I'm sick of the government arguing with monopolies, then taking dives. I want it to be abundantly clear that government has the ability to restrict these AI utility companies freely (such as their ability to feed on their customers), while still limiting the rights that the state has over the personal use of AI by private individuals. Partial state ownership will make that possible. Hell, let half their boards be publicly elected.
Seems like LLMs are that. A bunch of most probable word associations is a network, and you can build a physical model of a network, or build a network that allows you to reason about a physical model. Whether it's just a flowchart or workflow diagram, or an X-dimensional matrix with vectors moving through it.
But the only way to map the network in an LLM is experimentally. You have to prompt it, and see how the coefficients fall in order to construct your most likely walk through the training data.
I think that LLMs can and do come up with novel things through exhaustion, just by applying the relationships between some set of entities to entirely different sets of entities because an accumulation of earlier context pushed the probability of those entities being mentioned, and they were able to easily replace a selection of entities that were more associated with those nearer connective, relationship words.
I think that as such LLMs are good at generating metaphors, and a lot of innovation comes from going "What if As worked like Bs?" Just go through all the As and Bs, toss the ones that don't make any sense and test the ones that seem like they might.
What other people are saying is that this communicates almost nothing. What it does is allow people who are doing very bizarre things to food to hide among people who are doing pretty well known, well-tested, and ancient things to food. It's literally an argument to ignore the specifics, it's an argument for ignorance.
reply