Carl-Richard

They're signs, not proofs. AI doesn't have those signs. Look up the hallucination rates.

https://hai.stanford.edu/news/hallucinating-law-legal-mistakes-large-language-models-are-pervasive I hope you're not using it to learn about law 😝

At this stage, at least more than an AI. Look up the hallucination rates in AI language models. They're staggering. And again, you have more ways to uncover inaccuracies or untruthfulness in humans. Humans generally care about being truthful — AIs don't (they simply happen to be generally truthful if they're coded and trained well). And when humans aren't being truthful, you have many ways to uncover the untruthfulness. A person might stumble in their words, make awkward pauses, blush, avert their gaze, change their posture in a weird way, start fidgeting, becoming restless or uneasy, becoming blunt or defensive, changes in their vocal tone, become emotional or insecure, etc. An AI doesn't do that. I already mentioned markers like variations in fluency and verbal richness (untruthfulness often decreases these things). AI doesn't have such variations. Additionally, you can check which biases and incentives the person has (e.g. ideological affiliations, professional affiliations, economic incentives) and you can judge their character and past actions (e.g. positions of authority which require trust, general reputation, times caught lying). AI doesn't have that (except for past actions).

God damn 😍 As if I couldn't get any more gay for that guy 😂

Hehe, well it's not just a problem of bias, but of incoherence, irrelevance and delusion ("hallucinations"). It's like it's building sentences with these wooden blocks with words on them, and sometimes the words it chooses are from the wrong bucket, but the overall sentence looks relatively fine. So there is an additional deceptive element to the misinformation, which is scary. You can't use the back-up plan for determining coherence in humans on an AI, because they're always as fluent and verbally rich as they are when providing accurate information.

I might try that actually. Even if it provides misinformation, it's better than nothing

By the way, a quick tip for anyone who wants to "increase" their intelligence, or more practically improve their work: start high-intensity cardio (e.g. sprint training). If you want proof, just re-read the thread and see how much easier it is to read it now (I revised it after my sprint training ). (Of course a confounding factor is I slept really bad the day I wrote it and ate really bad food the day before; thank you 17th of May, our national holiday ). I might as well drop this one in here as well:

For once, I managed to decode one of @Reciprocality's posts. He is not giving a prescription that you should try to be a generalistic as possible and not engage your mind in detailed, concrete knowledge. He is basically re-phrasing what I said in his own words: intelligence is a generalistic thing, and the more generalistic you are, the more you're able to generalize. I agree. He is a tough nut to crack. I generally (using my generalistic abilities) avoid trying to understand his posts, but today I had the impulse, stamina and luck to try and succeed. That is the strength of the "neuroticism" by the way. It sometimes throws you a curve ball that you manage to deliver right in the corner of the net. On that, I'm about to talk to my potential advisor about a potential project about mindfulness and mind-wandering/"neuroticism" (and many other ideas). She is coincidentally a researcher on mindfulness and the leader of the institute where I got most my education, so that's fun

@Yimpa I somehow predicted you would post that Now play them some Meshuggah and watch them headbang and fistpump with their trunk.

Heavy metal.

Reminds me of this song: They're intentionally singing "bad", probably because that is the theme of the song ("the radio is broken"), or because of some other artistic impulse (regardless, the singers know how to sing better than that lol). For these kinds of songs, whether it will be considered good or bad more boils down to the discrepancy between the intended performance and the actual performance, which is really no longer about the music but the skill of the artist. If it's a live performance, people can compare it to the studio record. If it's recorded in the studio, people can compare it to the general expectation of the genre. If there is no expectation of the genre (which you can argue for this particular case), it's compared to the musicians and listeners own personal expectations, which not coincidentally starts to become very subjective.

Currently, I believe people who use AI uncritically is decreasing not necessarily their intelligence but the quality of their knowledge, as AI often makes simple factual mistakes. Especially if you're using AI very often (and especially uncritically), it means you're generally using an unreliable tool, which can certainly impact your intelligence. So AI is probably already making less smart people dumber, while smarter people are maybe getting a little smarter.

But why? What would be an objective standard for rating music?

Yeah, why?

Interesting example. It brings up an interesting topic, and I'm curious what you think: Tyler1 the streamer recently hit 1960 elo in Chess, and he only started playing under a year ago (infamously at 200 elo lol), which is outright insanity. How do we explain such an amazing feat? Chess is a weird sport in that it's often associated with raw intelligence, but there is also the notion that you only get really good if you started playing when you were really young (implying that experience is crucial), and there is also tons of concrete knowledge involved (openings, remembering games of other players, etc.). That said, these notions might be somewhat outdated due to Chess becoming increasingly digitalized, where you can endlessly play games over and over, practice Chess puzzles, analyze your games, etc. And that is partially what I think Tyler1 has capitalized on: he is a video game streamer who is used to grinding games for multiple hours a day, so when he started fixating on Chess, it's not surprising that he would experience some great results compared to an average person with a job or who came up during the pre-digitalized era. But 1960 elo in 9 months? Surely he must have some intellectual gift, right? So it begs the question: is his incredible 1960 elo in 9 months mostly due to his intelligence, or is it mostly due to his massive grinding schedule and use of clever skill-improving online technology (experience, knowledge)? I don't remember ever hearing Tyler1 being described as an intellectual genius, if anything quite to the contrary. Could anybody else achieve something similar if they put in the same number of hours and ferocious attention?

To the extent that this definition of intelligence is separate from knowledge (which could be described as "searching the problemspace beforehand"; essentially experience), intelligence becomes more related to "mystical" abilities like intuition and generalizable principles like logic, systemic concepts and virtues. These generalizable principles are of course themselves a form of knowledge, but they're elegant and adaptable, so you don't have to "search the entire problemspace" (rely on experience/knowledge) to solve a problem. They transcend mere knowledge. But this generalizability has many flaws (hence why Vervaeke says intelligence makes you prone to self-deception), which is why concrete knowledge is important and why for example there is "wisdom in tradition". And of course, recognizing the need for a balance between generalizable and concrete knowledge is part of what wisdom is. And similar to how a generalizable principle is a type of knowledge, balance is a type of generalizable principle, but it's hyper-generalized, transcending mere generalizability. It's hyper-elegant, adaptable and virtuous; sacred. So it transcends both knowledge and intelligence.

It's maybe more historically correct, but I feel like I've seen it today being used to describe well-meaning people. Besides, the Google definition says conscious manipulation is not a necessary criteria ☺️

You keep going at it. Conscientiousness (industriousness) is what produces results. Intelligence is only a modulator.

Right. Then I was mostly talking about the unintentional type of sophistry where the sophist intends to present their full understanding in an honest way, without any conscious manipulative goals in mind, but their level of understanding simply doesn't match their level of conviction, fluency, etc.

I think for a long time I've had this kind of benchmark for smartness in my head which we can call the "famous youtube PhD guy" benchmark (which is ironically very knowledge-based). Then with this growing frame of mind, I was recently watching an interview with Bryan Johnson, and I thought "does he reach that benchmark?", and I thought "yes, but probably way beyond it as well". When you get more familiar with the knowledge/intelligence distinction, you might notice there are some people that didn't occur to you to label as "smart" who actually end up being close to geniuses. This development might be in part due to me increasingly interacting with actual people with PhDs and realizing how they're not that different from other people 😆

The lens of traps can be a trap 😆

I love it 🤩

Np, and nope. I've never used them personally, but I've also only taken psychedelics a few times. I think PsychedSubstance has some videos on them.

It's almost like the people who make the music I like, resonate with me spiritually as well It's interesting also how both the album artworks include a tree in the middle and a dimly lit, green-yellowish sky in the background (and both band names start with C, which is my first initial ).

Testing kits. But you generally shouldn't be worried about getting fentanyl in your psychedelics. By the way, it's called "lacing cocaine with fentanyl", not "lacing fentanyl with cocaine". Lacing one class of drug with a completely different class of drug is a 0 IQ business move. It only works with cocaine and weed because they're hedonic drugs that produce a dopaminergic high. It's much more likely for psychedelics to be laced with a research chemical that actually works like psychedelics rather than fentanyl.