zogwarg

Pedantic note: Yes, Meditations (a phisosophical treatise) was written in Koine, Commentarii de Bello Gallico (veni, vedi, vici—self-aggrandizing combat-reports meant for the senate and propaganda) or other “published” works from Caesar were not.

Although bonus points, the ancient sources portray Caesar (a proper educated major family Patrician) as speaking his dying words—if reported saying anything at all—in Greek, not in Latin: “Καὶ σὺ τέκνον” (Even you, child) rendered in Shakespeare as “Et tu, Brute”.

And also closing with:

Nvidia insists that it “wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers.” And Nvidia does have the best stuff — but that’s not what the DOJ, Warren, or France are concerned about, is it?

To tie the bow nicely.

I should have used the preview ^_^

PS: Again!

Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science bullshit!

From “Girl Genius”

Reading about the hubris of young Yud is a bit sad, a proper Tragedy. Then I have to remind myself that he remains a manipulator, and that he should be old enough to stop believe—and promote—in magical thinking.

More tedious work with worse pay \o/

Also a subjectively bad one at that—given his america-brained position on wanting to maintain a single executive not that suprising but:

• Why do you even need to default to winner-take-all?
• Under winner-take-all dont you inherit most of the downside of FPTP? Sure there might be less wasted votes, but doesn’t actually make harder for 5% parties to get representation, since dominant parties have less of an incentive to negotiate and/or coallition build. (Though I guess subjective given Yud’s apparent dislike of many party working together in a coalition)
• For a “runoff” system, the STAR system has the dubious distinction of allowing the condorcet loser—a candidate that would lose 1 vs 1 matchup against every other candidate in the field—to win, because a very enthiusastic minority can give a bunch of 5-star ratings.
• At least FPTP has simplicity going for it, and not trying to arbitrarily compare not completely informed star ratings from voters.

*Epithet

草

Haven’t read the whole thing but I do chuckle at this part from the synopsis of the white paper:

[…] Our results suggest that AlphaProteo can generate binders “ready-to-use” for many research applications using only one round of medium-throughput screening and no further optimization.

And a corresponding anti-sneer from Yud (xcancel.com):

@ESYudkowsky: DeepMind just published AlphaProteo for de novo design of binding proteins. As a reminder, I called this in 2004. And fools said, and still said quite recently, that DM’s reported oneshot designs would be impossible even to a superintelligence without many testing iterations.

Now medium-throughput is not a commonly defined term, but it’s what DeepMind seems to call 96-well testing, which wikipedia just calls the smallest size of high-throughput screening—but I guess that sounds less impressive in a synopsis.

Which as I understand it basically boils down to “Hundreds of tests! But Once!”.
Does 100 count as one or many iterations?
Also was all of this not guided by the researchers and not from-first-principles-analyzing-only-3-frames-of-the-video-of-a-falling-apple-and-deducing-the-whole-of-physics path so espoused by Yud?
Also does the paper not claim success for 7 proteins and failure for 1, making it maybe a tad early for claiming I-told-you-so?
Also real-life-complexity-of-myriads-and-myriads-of-protein-and-unforeseen-interactions?