Observe how this amounts to crime. The platform has motive:
-newly single users attract more views
-newly single users are worth more to advertisers because they’re likely to spend on appearance, travel, new hobbies, and big ticket items formerly shared with a partner.
The platform also has opportunity because it has data on exactly what content has highest probability of nudging a particular user to break up. (Perhaps the “you are being abused by a narcissist” stuff others have mentioned works nicely.)
(See also Shoshanna Zuboff)
> What if a learning dataset simply has not enough info for a correct answer to have a greater weight than all the “con” noise?
Indeed. I wonder what happens as available training data shifts from purely human-generated (now) to largely AI-generated (soon).
Is this an information analogue to the “gray goo” doomsday that an uncontrolled self-replicating nano device could cause?
>can it answer “I don’t know this”
Such a fabulous question. This statement likely appears infrequently in the training data.
>can it answer “I don’t know this”
Afaik this is one of the more newer ways of training ML models, I've been looking into using it myself for a few things.
A lot of models were trained to provide some quantifiable output 100% of the time, even if that output was wrong. Ie image recognition models "82.45% certain that is a dog", whereas it makes _all_ the difference for it to be able to say "82.42% certain that is a dog and 95.69% certain I don't know what that is" to indicate that the image has many features of a dog, but not enough for it to be more certain that it is a dog than isn't. It's the negative test problem I guess; us devs often forget to do it too.
In a way I wonder if that's how some of the systems in our brains work as well; ie we evolved certain structures to perform certain tasks, but when those structures fail to determine an action, the "I don't know" from that system can kick back into another. Thing like the fear response: brain tries to identify dark shadow & can't, kicks back to evolutionary defence mechanisms of be scared/cautious feel fear as it's saved the skins of our forebears.
Curiosity killed the cat. We’ve developed disgust and taboos and physiological responses like vomiting to safeguard our interactions with living things that are small enough to eat.
Perhaps an advanced form of life/intelligence that has survived contact with various others would be guided by some form of wisdom/disgust/caution/discretion. It would not be surprising if they noticed little clues like our rapid deforestation, rising temperatures, shrinking ice caps, nuclear detonations… which would make us seem slovenly or likely to have “poor friendship skills.”
Or perhaps they'll observe and make contact with various different intelligent species on Earth, not just humans, and then decide that humans are making the planet inhospitable for other intelligent species like humpback whales, so we need to be eliminated to save the rest.
Or maybe we're the friendliest they've ever encountered.
People like to present humans like some godawful species. It's more likely that we're in the middle of the spectrum.
Primatologists indeed rate humans as less aggressive than for example great chimpanzees. But more than bonobos. So we are not the most agressive primates or species on earth. That must count for something, doesn’t it?
> think I’m burning out (home, kids, marriage, etc)
Do you think you could manage the job if there were no expectations on you outside the job? Could your partner get on board with you needing some time with very few home responsibilities (as it's best for the family in the long run)?
Can you find access to nature? For me, a couple of unstructured hours getting bored in a truly natural setting feels almost like a vacation.
Karezza could help create a generous, non-transactional vibe at home and help you maintain creative energy.
Art Against Despair is a book put together by The School of Life. It's arranged with one page of text for each image, so it's an easy serving size when you don't have much time or attention. These are not nice pictures of flowers but, for example, why it's worth spending some time gazing into one of Rothko's black canvases, and for that matter, the darkness inside one's own being.
One that Loeb has mentioned: the status quo 10-year plan involves searching exoplanets for oxygen, which could arise without life, and which organisms would not necessarily need or produce. Instead, Loeb thinks we ought to look for industrial pollutants. A positive result on that would be extremely interesting.
If the US hadn't dropped the ball on enforcing existing antitrust laws in the 80s and 90s, we wouldn't have to ask. Perhaps many more regular people would own productive enterprises, and wouldn't be looking to government to address inequality.
Now that both corporations and government are so big and intrusive that they're somewhere between a nuisance and prohibitive toward small-scale enterprise, we should at least think about ways to sic them on each other.
I am skeptical of the headlines touting medical mistakes as the No. 3 cause of death in the US. But to be fair, someone could put up a similar site listing thousands of people who have been harmed under conventional medical care.
Your site doesn't provide enough info to compare the rate of harm. For mild ailments, which is what I assumed OP was speaking of, homeopathic treatments might have a lower rate of harm.
Iatrogenesis is a possibility with any health care. And, to give your link credit, homeopathy certainly sounds like a dangerous route for serious conditions.
"The great secret, known to internists and learned early in marriage by internists wives, but still hidden from the general public, is that most things get better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."
- Lewis Thomas, The Lives of a Cell
(Among other achievements, he was dean of Yale Medical School and president of Sloan-Kettering. This collection of essays was published in 1974 and is absolutely prescient and fascinating - he offers profound thoughts on the nature of science, computing, and medicine that have stood the test of time astonishingly well.)
But that't the whole point: for fifteen years it didn't get better on its own. In fact, it got progressively worse over a period of months and years. When things got really bad (like on-the-floor-writhing-in-pain-wishing-I-were-dead bad) I went to see a doctor. The doctor did something (meds, endoscopies) and then things got better, and they'd stay better for a few years before they slowly, steadily, and inexorably got worse again. This cycle repeated itself three times in fifteen years. This most recent episode was the fourth cycle.
What makes this last episode interesting was that fate intervened to force me to do a control experiment, and the outcome has been dramatic: I feel as good (if not better) than immediately after all the prior interventions. In 15 years I have never had that happen if I just did nothing.
