A great article the author didn’t even proofread.

Remember your tarot cards to help you deal with “CyThe cynicism” you develop when you get bogged down, the same way you do all that doomsday prep!

I’m not saying there isn’t some potentially good stuff in here, but this article is clickbait publishing for its own sake.

It’s too hard to get the bits of radish out of the strings at the top of the fret board for me.

This is demonstrably true by experiment, but I think it has to have at least SOME value. Like you can give a drink or buy them a candy bar before you ask for something and they are more likely to donate more money to your cause. It’s called “influence debt” I believe and is discussed pretty palatably in “Influence” by Robert Cialdini. Unfortunately I couldn’t find my notes on it with a quick search.

Garbage.

Tell me the average of all people who have more than zero (and the number that represents), then tell me how many have zero.

This number 955 doesn’t mean shit.

And yet still in no way equivalent to a dick pic. Equivalence here is “raspberriesareyummy doesnt like that” which doesn’t exactly meet muster, even for a shower thought.

We will just have to let Andromeda come to us.

Chocolate?!

“Yarrr, add it to me playlist.”

Look at the size of the bones on that rat!

I’m from North kilt town!

And I love it. Its the core or the martian if you don’t know what to watch.

There is value in talking to people, but that has nothing to do with a question or situation you might Google or look up in a book. These are fundamentally different things.

Subjective information is inherently less valuable than objective information for trying to learn something unless you are writing a survey paper. If you want to have a chat to combat loneliness or try to better understand your grandmother you’re not answering a question so you wouldn’t look it up anyway. If you’re googling what it feels like to make a roux you are probably not neurotypical.

No?

If there’s no objective, correct answer to a question then the point is moot. If you’re getting something out of some individual’s subjective answer it’s based on the want to build a relationship or gain understanding of that person which inherently has nothing to do with the question itself.

That’s fine and all, but not really what I understand your original question to be asking. People have experiences, and those experiences are theirs: they can’t give them to you. If you like hearing about it anyway, cool, but you might as well read a poem.

Edit: substitute “a book” for “Google” in your question and see how it’s a weird take.

You’re describing qualia which are necessarily subjective. These accounts are not helpful whether you get them from Google or anywhere else.

Anecdotes may be interesting, but on the whole they are not as useful as objective answers.

You can’t afford it.

Just block hexbear and .ml!

Probably Roko’s Leviathan.

hunter2.h2

Bro.

This kind of stuff happens on any model you train from scratch even before training for multi step reasoning. It seems to happen more when there’s not enough data in the training set, but it’s not an intentional add. Output length is a whole deal.