Sean

too online.

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@uncle_deluge It'd just be like burning kindling right?

Square-cube law: logs burn nice and slow because they have greater volume per surface-area than twigs (and moisture concerns that also come back to this ratio)

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@zetalyrae During training, we're getting machines to do the "more important" kind of work, that we can't really access

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@zetalyrae Fantastic article.
A distinction he doesn't make wrt to AI's ability to form concepts, is the ability to elucidate concepts in outputs vs the ability to learn novel concepts during training. A gap that humans don't really have, or is less pronounced.

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@azw____ @BarneyFlames @KipperkipKipper Unless your claim is that Britain peaked in the 1100's, this isn't true. Especially if you start talking about Science or Industry (Newton, Maxwell, Watt, Hamilton, Faraday... not exactly Norman surnames)

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@farewellyt @TheLincoln Nearly every kind of cell is near constantly regenerating itself, not to mention multiplying, constantly bringing in new material and expelling waste. This means the atoms in your body get replaced.
Think about it, or if that's too hard look it up, you're being a fool

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@AntifaScoundrel @Juno_h8cal @farewellyt @TheLincoln ❤️

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@Juno_h8cal @farewellyt @TheLincoln I didn't go for cells because neurons do actually last a while & intentifying yourself with your cells (which turn over regularly) is as arbitrary as identifying with atoms those cells are made of (which turn over even faster)

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@farewellyt @TheLincoln Obviously "If your parents had a child 10 years earlier, would they have the same genes as you" the answer is obviously not (though sperm rather than eggs are obviously a bigger source of randomness). But all hypotheticals run into similar problems
We definitely cycle our atoms

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@farewellyt @TheLincoln I know how genetics work dumbass. Identity is more complicated than genes, or matter, especially when we start considering hypotheticals.

What is "you"? The egg you were formed from no longer exists. You recycle your atoms pretty regularly.

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@JosephMooneyMP You don't need to be so rude, though I know many are engaging in bad faith.
I'm not trying to gotcha, it's just that you're making claims about "scientists" based on evidence about abstracts.
Those are different, it's not a good idea to draw any kind of conclusion from this data

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@JosephMooneyMP 66.4% of abstracts didn't express a view because they're about something else.

This is like trying to get your weather news from the sport section.

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@JosephMooneyMP This is a bad interpretation of the paper you're citing.
It's not a survey of scientists! It's a survey of climate science papers' abstracts, it's a totally different thing.
Making a claim like
"🌎 66.4% of scientists didn’t express a view at all..." is misleading at best

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@JosephMooneyMP @1anonymousbloke This is not a particularly good measure of scientific consensus. It's a survey of abstracts in climate science - most of which (66%) did not even mention the topic. You'd need a survey of scientists, not their papers

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@quasicoh The conclusion it leads me to is that proto-humans got very lucky.
That a confluence of factors had us well situated to take advantage of intelligence.

Like bodies adept at manipulation (hands), being social, having access to fire, long-ish lifespans, Octopi have none of that

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@eshear @mykola Being "arbitrarily similar" is describing a property of the production process, not any object itself

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@lookoutitsbbear There's no equals sign
It's the RHS of
z= |z|×(cos(theta) +i sin(theta))

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@lowlandsapien It's definitely baked-in to our perception (eg. our perception of pitch for instance is the logarithmic with frequency, though other cases are more messy).

RE how it works in our reasoning, it sounds more sensible when you say "we naturally think in terms of proportions"

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@OffbrandDrPhil @moultano It's not the paints being mixed (where you need CMY). The light is getting mixed together, so you need RGB.
The mixing doesn't happen "physically", but in our perception

[Sean @doomlysheep]

@OffbrandDrPhil @moultano Incorrect in this case, we should essentially treat these surfaces as emissive.
This is not like mixing paints, which is subtractive.
The reflected eg red and then blue light reach the eye in quick succession, and due to persistence of vision are added together.