aspiring erisologist ("the study of disagreement and intellectual difference") | Author of "Competitive Sensemaking" (https://teapaw.org/t.co/0zc8p9EBAR)
Joined March 2017
- Tweets8K
- Following1.2K
- Followers4K
- Likes12K
You start by giving them my book, obviously. 😉
There's even a section on precisely this issue!
Can't explain why but there's something about saying "on the planet" instead of "in the world" that icks me. It's got "le Reddit" vibes.
Worst case of " 'exponential' means 'a lot' " I've seen so far.
If you had an exponential amount of compute you could solve simulate biology exactly and wouldn't need to run any experiments.
Some of you will think "of course, but that's an unrealistic assumption" and others will think "no, you need experiments even with that much compute. That's just How It's Done".
You would of course need evaluations once you have a solution, but you don't in principle need experiments to find it: Experiments are a way to save compute, dating from a time when it was much more expensive.
And I think the presentation is exponential but real systems aren't irreducibly exponential. AlphaFold worked, after all.
"I reject your vocabulary" is from 2018 everythingstudies.com/wordy-…
It's easy. "Greed" in this sense doesn't mean wanting more than you have, it means wanting more than an arbitrary limit, thought to separate "needs" from "wants". If you have over the limit, it's greedy to want to stay over it, and if you're under it, it's not greedy to want to reach it.
Is there any path to a future with a shared culture? At all?
Hello computer.
Decompile and distill Grand Theft Auto.
Make the game set in my hometown -- use Google Earth to reconstruct it in pixel-perfect detail.
Make the character me and have my spawn point be in the mansion I always look at on Zillow.
Review my chat memory and make every mission about my hopes and dreams.
Make it playable online so my friends can join.
When you're done, sell all my video games on Ebay and use that money to fund tokens for my next game.
I've been harping on about this for ten years now. When is it going to become common knowledge?
I've stayed far away from the radioactive Cornell discourse, but I do want to make one meta-observation.
I spend a lot of time in different corners of the internet, and the two 'sides' of the Cornell story are living in separate universes. Entirely different facts, wildly separate narratives. Spend time in different social media spaces and it's like they're describing two totally distinct incidents.
There's almost no shared reality whatsoever, and that strikes me as really dangerous.
It thought I was Norwegian too. It's really frustrating though, that you have to trick it to do this. It's not against its guidelines, however, to lie about its capabilities, which strikes me as topsy-turvy morality.
John Nerst retweeted
Right about when you were writing this tweet (which I just saw) I was writing this draft text:
A distinction without a difference since essences don't really exist. They're theoretical entities, imputed as artifacts of how we form and use concepts.
John Nerst retweeted
I actually don't know how to make the house not a disaster and also not be angry and neurotic about it. If I stop being angry and neurotic it immediately devolves into chaos and there does not seem to be a mode where I'm chill and we have acceptable living conditions.
I find this odd but common, this idea that there's a distinctively feminine view of what women are hot, and what's that supposed to look like, and it's different from what men think, and this causes a lot of anger. Is there something equivalent for men? That men get angry that women don't find the right men attractive? Maybe the "more ripped always better" thing? The whole notion is strange.
How can you be a communication expert and not understand how obnoxious this is to a lot of people? I had one colleague do this to me recently and I did *not* think "I really like him".
John Nerst retweeted
I’m increasingly convinced that the internet hasn’t just made political debate nastier. It has changed the way we understand reality.
We can now construct entire information environments in which almost everything we encounter confirms what we already believe.
Once two people inhabit different realities, asking them to debate reasonably may be asking the impossible.
I wonder if someone wrote about this...
There was a time when meeting someone who believed the Earth was flat made rational debate almost impossible. Not because you disagreed about politics, but because you couldn’t agree on the reality from which the discussion had to begin.
Increasingly, that’s what political debate feels like.
We’re not arguing about what to do about reality. We’re arguing about what reality is.
