This is honestly why I love C++ ranges right now. The "pipe" syntax is a "left-to-right" of writing very powerful map/filter operations in contexts where I'd want a list comprehension but in a much more sensical (and for that matter customizable) order
Readit Newsadvael commented on Left to Right Programming graic.net/p/left-to-right... · Posted by u/graic
advael commented on We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness newyorker.com/magazine/20... · Posted by u/defo10
Real humans are also fake and they are also traps who are waiting to catch you when you say something they don't like. Then they also use every word and piece of information as ammunition against you, ironically sort of similar to the criticism always levied against online platforms who track you and what you say. AI robots are going to easily replace real humans because compared to most real humans the AI is already a saint. They don't have an ego, they don't try to gaslight you, they actually care about what you say which is practically impossible to find in real life.. I mean this isn't even going to be a competition. Real humans are not going to be able to evolve into the kind of objectively better human beings that they would need to be to compete with a robot.
This view of social interaction seems symptomatic of internet socialization, specifically social media. Since engagement is often driven better by controversy, the overall incentives in that context make an experience like yours more likely. Similarly, LLM providers who offer a public-facing chat service tend to be incentivized to tune their models to foment addiction. While people can indeed treat each other awfully sometimes, I think you could benefit a lot from seeking out specifically in-person interactions, perhaps in a context with a shared activity that can take some of the edge off of direct interpersonal engagement
77 is the average life expectancy for all people. If one enters the website at 40 their life expectancy is much higher, since they are already 40
Yea. It's kind of the same error, in a way, as people who assume that there were no old people in the middle ages. The overwhelming majority of the increase in expected lifespan between then and now comes from drastic decreases in the infant and child mortality rates. While current medicine is only really making slow, incremental progress on letting the oldest people live longer, even if this was the bulk of the advancement you wouldn't see the kind of movement on overall life expectancy you'd get out of reducing those, and that's just on the pure statistical basis of how the metric is constructed. But on top of that, I think it's nearly impossible to understand just how many infants used to be stillborn, and how many diseases we essentially eliminated. The death of a child from an illness used to be a fairly common tragedy, now it is a rare one.
It's just a little internet toy that probably cashes out to be a slightly more impactful version of "memento mori", but you could add a little backend complexity without collecting any more demographic information and get a more accurate life expectancy given only one's current age from extant actuarial tables. If you wanted to be extra cheeky, you could have it adjust on a regional basis based on IP address too
What are the principles governing the exceptions you listed (slander, doxxing, incitement)?
Mostly the principle that direct, tangible, and irreparable harm is being done by the speech. I called these "hairy" exactly because they are less clear-cut than most cases. The line between satire or speculation and slander, for example, can be kind of notoriously hard to draw, many "doxxing" incidents mostly involve finding already-public information, and incitement to violence is pretty difficult to demonstrate in a satisfying way
The reason I bring up these examples is that they are what I consider the edge cases of freedom of expression. There are genuinely difficult tradeoffs between values, but allowing stuff that bothers some people to be published is not one of them
It's crazy to me that people can simultaneously understand that censorship is bad and still think we can allow for exceptions for things like "obscenity/pornography" or "hate speech"
Free expression means that objectionable things will be said, even published. There are certainly hairy exceptions, like doxxing, slander, or incitement to violence that can put people in immediate danger, but stuff like this clearly doesn't fall in that category, and giving finance the ability to censor in this way is not signficantly better than governments doing so
advael commented on Hierarchical Reasoning Model arxiv.org/abs/2506.21734... · Posted by u/hansmayer
advael commented on Hierarchical Reasoning Model arxiv.org/abs/2506.21734... · Posted by u/hansmayer
I really like this usage of recurrent modules to augment attention-based models, and I think this is a really cool result and a fruitful avenue for future work
advael commented on AI comes up with bizarre physics experiments, but they work quantamagazine.org/ai-com... · Posted by u/pseudolus
Referring to this type of optimization program just as “AI” in an age where nearly everyone will misinterpret that to mean “transformer-based language model” seems really sloppy
This exact kind of sloppy equivocation does seem to be one of the major PR strategies that tries to justify the massive investment in and sloppy rollout of transformer-based language models when large swaths of the public have turned against this (probably even more than is actually warranted)
advael commented on The death of partying in the USA derekthompson.org/p/the-d... · Posted by u/tysone
Free time and mental energy is the limiting factor I think.
Personally I observe that social events seem to be most common among students who also are quite poor.
However mental energy and free time is surely correlated with wealth.
The effects of wealth on outcomes meaningful to most humans look mostly like a step functions, with some continuous-lookin' bits here and there. Anecdotally my assumption is that partying x wealth is bimodal, with peaks near the top and the middle-bottom of the wealth distributions. But homeless people and people scraping by on two minimum-wage jobs, both of which comprise a larger portion of america than when I was a child, are unlikely to be able to host or even often attend parties, like I think there's a sharp step to basically zero after a certain poverty line unless you're in a really integrated community (also less common over that time period, to be fair)
advael commented on The death of partying in the USA derekthompson.org/p/the-d... · Posted by u/tysone
I like that this delves into the relationship between "helicopter parenting" and this trend, and maybe I missed it, but I find that it conspicuously lacks economic precarity and the decline of real wages over this time period as an explanation. Hosting social events does cost free time and money and most people have way less of both in real terms than the period it's comparing to