What do you mean? Virtually all humans have access to the internet. That's literally "a significant cross section of human knowledge available in real-time".
Oh, the median human can't process that in realtime, you say? Looks like they can't compete with the capabilities of the frontier AI then.
Well before I knew he was a nutter, it strikes be that the graph starts in 1991. Feels like we should should have more data than that, and that the same graph would be more powerful if it started in 1800 and showed the same thing (or at least, earlier in the 20th century, surely we must have data from the 1950s at least? probably earlier?)
Not saying that the data is not concerning, or that climate warming isn't real, BTW. I'm just saying this particular graph feels fishy.
It seems that pass rate decreases with effort increase, on GPT5.5? This is highly counter-intuitive and I don't see any explanation, any idea why they'd get this result?
> If you don't call an exterminator with the proper poison almost any effort you make will be moot.
Nah, not true. I lived in a student housing that was positively _infested_ with cockroaches (and had stuff like wood paneling on the walls, just to get an idea - i.e. lots of places for roaches to hide). We managed to largely get rid of cockroaches in our room (you still get the occasional one, because well, you had to open the door, and hallways were infested as I mentioned).
It's not _that_ hard, there are a lot of solutions. You need to do 3 things:
a. seal all holes/cracks/niches (e.g. with silicone). cover ventilation holes with nets. Install sponge/rubber bands to make sure doors/windows close well.
b. kill them once when you move in (after doing the work at point a) using copious amounts of insecticides; then install roach traps (sticky ones are good) to catch the occasional one that makes it through your defenses. Keep occasional spraying in the corners/ behind the fridge/ near the pipes/ in places where they are likely to gather.
c. Keep it clean/ don't offer a lot of incentives for roaches to come over to you (no breadcrumbs all over the place, food in closed containers etc)
Do these well and you should be largely roach-free, regardless of the building. But yeah, it's an annoying fight if the building itself is infested.
How are all these "broken and dangerous"? In my car (Volvo) they work rather well. Perhaps sign detection sometimes misses signs, but so do I so I can't fault it. The others though, I rank them all somewhere between "genuinely useful" and "absolutely awesome"
N.B. I didn't write /all/ were "broken and dangerous"
But some personal examples:
- Auto high beam assist saw a car at a side junction, turned off high beam, then turned back on, mimicking a 'flash' to let the car out, which they acted on by pulling out. I had to brake hard to avoid them. I was doing 60 mph
- I was on the motorway and a stranded vehicle was on the hard shoulder and the driver decided to exit from the side closest to my lane. I went to move over slightly to give space and avoid him, and the lane assist pushed me back towards him (there was too much traffic for me to change lanes)
- Driving in built-up areas with lots of parked cars and narrow sections, the collision avoidance has pre-activated with huge beeping warnings that massively distracted me, causing me to actually nearly hit something
These were all different modern (but not high end) vehicles
Auto cruise control doesn't take into account vehicles in other lanes etc. It encourages disengagement in dangerous situations/surroundings. It is by definition dangerous
edit: and speed sign detection is probably the most broken. The constant beeping and flashing. I mean, I don't have to explain that do I? Distraction -> danger.
Admittedly mine is somewhat high end, and I have seen broken implementations (which is what I think you describe; e.g. for auto high beam assist mine will redirect the beams around isolated cars, won't completely switch to low beams except in heavy /heavier traffic; and when it does, it takes at least several seconds to switch back - which makes it impossible to do the kind of "flash" you describe).
But I'm kinda' surprised by the cruise control, I don't think I ever drove a car, even a rental, where cruise control wasn't at least "genuinely useful". Even the non-automatic one. How does it "not take into account vehicles in other lanes"/ what makes it dangerous?
PSA: Flashing someone is never a signal that you're giving them priority. That is explicitly forbidden in the highway code and dangerous. Flashing someone, like using the horn, only means "I'm here, just in case you didn't see me". If someone flashes you, you should make your own determination whether it is safe to perform a manoeuvre, making no assumptions about anything that the person who flashed you might be seeming to be promising.
> PSA: Flashing someone is never a signal that you're giving them priority.
Uh. I guess you've not many US highway miles under your belt. If nothing else, it's a very common nighttime signal to let passing truckers know that they've room to get back in the rightmost lane. I can't imagine that the signalling situation is much different in other places that have a large population of generally-decently-skilled drivers.
> If someone flashes you, you should make your own determination whether it is safe to perform a manoeuvre...
Sure. The operator of a vehicle is ultimately the person who's responsible for its safe operation.
Having said that, few drivers are interested in killing their fellow travelers. Especially at night, determining the "time of arrival" of oncoming traffic, or the distance between the end of your bigass trailer and traffic behind you can be quite difficult. If it's customary in your area to use headlight flashing to indicate to traffic ahead of you that it's safe for them to perform whatever maneuver that they may be uncertain about, then it's not unreasonable to assume that the driver that uses that signal isn't attempting to kill you with misinformation.
Automatic high-beam-togglers don't really care about anything, [0] so that's definitely one piece of malfunctioning tech that makes the roads less safe.
Nobody had ever angrily flashed their lights at me until the first time I drove a new car with automatic lights. On one occasion blasted someone 50-100' away, which there's no way I've ever done. There's a long dark road I drive on often where every time there's at least one car I can tell left its brights on too long, and it's blinding.
Perhaps you're a better-than-average driver? I unfortunately am not, and have had the opposite experience (people flashing me because I forgot to turn off the high beams, or couldn't do it fast enough due to e.g. a corner, or drinking water with that hand, or whatever). In long straight lines it's relatively easy to do it, on windy roads not so much. On the other hand, with current car I don't remember anybody flashing me.
Personally, I just developed a strategy for dealing with too-bright-incoming-lights: just focus on the right edge of the road - that takes my eyes off the lights, and it's where the danger lies anyway. With that, late-commuting vehicles are a lot less of a nuisance than people who just have poorly tuned low beams or simply keep high beams on always. And those problems/ people are unrelated to the "automatic commute" technology - arguably the tech improves things on that front, even in the not-so-great implementations.
You can still believe that the scientific method works; and might leads you to 2 conclusions:
(a) "I can prove earth is not flat" (using this methodology)
(b) I cannot prove there is no God, though I may believe the prevalence of evidence does not support the hypothesis, there's no scientific test that I can design.
The scientific method is partly inspired by belief in a God who is good (so no deceit) and created a universe that runs on laws. If you have particular beliefs about God, you can build a lot on that (as Descartes did).
I guess it could be? I interpreted what the parent commenter wrote like "the variables aren't actually correlated" (which definitely does happen sometimes)
Whereas my point is moreso when, the variables really are correlated but it's purely due to random chance. Not bullshit, per se, just bad luck (or possibly, p-hacking).
(Though the solution to both is the same - you shouldn't trust a study until it's been independently replicated on new data.)
Oh, the median human can't process that in realtime, you say? Looks like they can't compete with the capabilities of the frontier AI then.
reply