I think it's a very interesting approach and I highly support such an initiative. The easiest way to get a lot of data out of the body is probably to tap the body's own monitoring system - the sensory nerves.

A chemosensor also sounds like a useful thing it should give concentration by time. Minimally invasive option would be to monitor breath, better signal in blood.

Long term the goal should be to find a treatment that is safe enough and with so small side effects that it can be used for any suspicious mutations even though it may be decades away from killing you.

Yes.. as I read the OP post I was thinking about how many weak natural poisons (ie bloodroot) have been shown to be effective at dispersing through the body and how they might be a good treatment ie 1-2 month course of pills.

Regarding your second point I think there are two cases here that should be kept separate. The first is that you are teleported into a parallel dimension where literally everything works differently from here. In that case I do agree that there are several reasonable choices of models of computation. You simply have to pick one and hope it wasn't too bad.

But the second case is that you encounter some phenomenon here in our ordinary world. And in that case I think you can do way better by reasoning about the phenomenon and trying to guess at plausible mechanics based on your preexisting knowledge of how the world works. In particular, I think guessing that "there is some short natural language description of how the phenomenon works, based on a language grounded in the corpus of human writing" is a very reasonable prior.

It certainly seems plausible, but I wouldn't entirely rule out other possibilities.

Do to give an example if you present the LLM with two people that are exactly the same except they have different color shirts I think it will suggest slightly different salary for one than the other for no clear reason and without any obvious bias in the training set.

I think what will happen is that ordinary people will invest in a mutual fund managed by AI and/or the funds people already invest in will start adopting AI-tooling.

I think this scenario is plausible because the path to this scenario is so smooth so it will be the default outcome unless something strange happens to prevent it.

I'm wondering what a market looks like where everyone is running an AI that makes the optimal purchases. The market needs bag holders.

I also don't know that it would change my behaviour. If my goal is long term investment success what's the downside of my continuing to invest in broad market funds? I don't need an AI making split second decisions if my investment horizon is still 30 years.

Wild guess, but I think trading activity goes down. AI focuses instead on which equity issuances to participate in.

Webgpu api taking screenshot of full desktop maybe?

Do you think WebGPU would be any more of an attack vector than WebGL?

Rowhammer itself is a write-only attack vector. It can, however, potentially be chained to change the write address to an incorrect region. Haven't dived into details.

How is it a write-only attack vector?

Rowhammer allows you to corrupt/alter memory physically adjacent to memory you have access to. It doesn't let you read the memory you're attacking.

There's PoC's of corrupting memory _that the kernel uses to decide what that process can access_ but the process can't read that memory. It only knows that the kernel says yes where it used to say no. (Assuming it doesn't crash the whole machine first)

Suppose you have access to certain memory. If you repeatedly read from that memory, can't you still corrupt/alter the physically adjacent memory you don't have access to? Does it really need to be a write operation you repeatedly perform?

> Does it really need to be a write operation you repeatedly perform?

Yes. The core of rowhammer attacks is in changing the values in RAM repeatedly, creating a magnetic field, which induces a change in the state of nearby cells of memory. Reading memory doesn't do that as far as I know.

I probably should have called it "blind" instead.

When you say cracking open a black hole do you mean cracking the event horizon to form a naked singularity?

The answer would likely be worth a Nobel prize or two.

Platform 9¾ at King's Cross Station

I think you know exactly what to make of it.

We label everything as an addiction if we do it too much and enjoy it.

But what if the thing we do is good?

Addicted to eating vegetables, addicted to healthy living, etc.

If a developer is using AI for example and they spend a lot of time doing it, and they're feeling fulfilled and happy, then that's fine.

And that's what it has to come down to: does it have a net benefit or net detriment?

But look at the questions:

"Does my use of AI lead me to neglect my personal hygiene, nutritional needs, or physical health?"

(compare with: "Does my eating of vegetables lead me to neglect my personal hygiene, nutritional needs, or physical health?")

"Have my digital behaviors jeopardized my studies, finances, or career?"

(compare with: "Have my healthy living behaviors jeopardized my studies, finances, or career?")

All questions are about negative impact on your life. To me it doesn't matter whether you label it "addiction". If you answer yes to most of these questions, whatever the subject, it is severely affecting your life.

> Have my healthy living behaviors jeopardized my studies, finances, or career?

I have met people who are so deep into healthy living that it becomes unhealthy, and their hyper focus on what is healthy - often, these days, fed by TikTok influencers, but when I was younger, fed just as much by books - leads to obsessing over what they can eat to the point of malnourishment.

So the answer to this question very much can be "yes". Humans can get addicted to all kinds of things. Healthy eating is only a few steps away from an eating disorder, in the same way that going out for drinks with friends is only a few steps away from alcoholism. Most people will never take those few steps, but for those who do, it can become a serious problem.

Addiction is addiction. You see this a lot in endurance sports (triathlon etc.): people can get addicted to training and racing, and despite these being "healthy" things in general, their families, relationships, and lives outside of the sport are damaged, often irreversible.

Doing anything "too much" is bad for you.

Just minddumping here but I think that basically high velocity is bad because it leads to high friction and high temperatures. Velocity has two components, downwards and tangential. Tangential velocity is both good and bad. It increases velocity, but it also makes the trajectory more orbitlike, with less downwards acceleration. A gliding plane will both fall slower both due to the above, but also because thats just how gliding works. But if it tumbles it will not glide.