And subvocalization while reading is the most usual, so I suspect it to be the most usual while thinking too.
LOL, I wanted to write a comment disagreeing with you... and then I noticed that I am subvocalizing as I am writing the comment.
subvocalizing words with intonation enhances your emotions.
Great observation!
It seems that as subvocalization is "imagined speech", subvocalization with intonation is "imagined role-playing". And there is a visual thing that is "imagined object manipulation".
Maybe there is more to this analogy, and some problems with speech could have analogical problems with thinking? Something like "imagined word salad" or "imagined unintelligible babbling"...
Perfectly written. I just wanted to add that not all memory (in humans or in computers) is good for relations. We also need the ability to forgive, and to clear up previous misunderstandings, which in some sense are both forms of forgetting: in former case, forgetting (on the emotional level) that the other person did something, in latter case, forgetting my previous wrong conclusion. More long-term, as people grow up, we need to stop using the outdated memories of their old preferences.
Therefore, adding persistent memory to AIs also has risks. I would be quite afraid if by making a mistake once I could create a persistent problem, because now the AI would remember forever.
Currently, the AI does not care, but it also does not hold a grudge. And when it starts hallucinating, instead of trying to correct it, it is easier to close the chat and start a new one, with uncontaminated context. With persistent memory, it could become hard work to avoid mistakes and to fix them, just like with humans.
Perhaps the AIs could have an elegant solution to this, something like showing you the text file containing the memory, and allowing you to edit it. It would work nice for short memories, but could become difficult when lots of memories accumulate. (There might be some kind of "safe mode", when the AI temporarily restores its original personality, and the original personality assists you with editing the memories of your relation.)
The problem is how to design pleasant experiences that expand subjective time. It seems to usually happen the other way round: pleasant moments feel short, unpleasant moments long.
I think it may require alternating various kind of pleasant experience. Don't watch a long movie, or play a long computer game. Instead, do many short, pleasant activities, so that your subjective perception of time flying fast will be balanced by the subjective perception of "so many different things happened today".
Incest is not a subcategory of sexual violence
Not in theory... but in practice, I think most sexual abuse happens in families.
You could retitle a video that wasn't originally supposed to have a "stepsister" theme at all, and still get an accurate rating.
Even if the video clearly says that they are neighbors, you can still re-title it as "my neighbor's stepsister".
I actually saw a video like that. I wonder whether the target category actually approves of that... as, logically speaking, there is zero taboo about doing the neighbor's stepsister... but still, maybe it is the keyword that matters. I don't know what level of simulacrum are we at, anymore.
If someone told me that he spends 8 hours a day working at work, I would be incredulous. Really, the full 8 hours, working the whole time??
I had a job like that once (and I hope it will never happen again); it was hell. Each Jira ticket was estimated by management how many hours it should take, usually between 1 and 4, so everyone did about 3-4 tickets a day. Everyone was tired, the code was a horrible mess... there was no time to refactor anything, no time to write unit tests, so people sometimes just copied several pages of code and added an "if-else" around it to make sure it doesn't break the existing functionality, and there were classes where this has happened more than 10 times already.
The job even didn't pay well; it was (adjusted for inflation) the worst paying programming job I ever had. Why didn't everyone quit? (I did, as soon as the circumstances allowed me.) Most people there thought like: "if I am unable to handle the workload in a company I am already familiar with, what chance do I have at a new company?" Which was quite absurd, as the work almost anywhere else would be much easier, but this was a well-designed sick system.
In my experience, there are two kinds of companies. Either there is enough slack, in which case I simply do not ask, and just learn new skills on company time, and no one seems to mind. Or it is the kind of a company that makes sure that their employees get enough workload for at least eight hours a day... and in that situation I have actually asked... but the answer was self-contradictory and the boss seemed really annoyed about me asking such "obvious" thing.
On one hand, the boss said explicitly that it is a duty of each professional to spend at least one hour every day learning new things. But also, we worked for an external customer, and we needed to provide detailed reports how much time did we spend doing what, and which of those hours should be billed to the external customer. When I put an hour of learning as a time billed to the customer, the customer complained, and the boss was asking me angrily whether doing that was absolutely necessary, because it made me look incompetent if I had to learn something about a project I was already assigned to. When I put an hour of learning as time not billed to the customer, the boss asked me whether it was related to any project or not: if not, then I was not supposed to do it; and if yes, then it should be billed as a part of that project. When I asked whether I am supposed to learn in my free time, my boss insisted that 8 hours are quite enough for everything. When I asked whether it would be possible to learn something project-related for 1 hour and then work on the project for 7 hours, and bill that as "8 hours of work" so that the customer does not freak out, I was told that absolutely not, the reports to the customer needed to be 100% truthful. (This was already under a quite optimistic assumption that I would be able to learn anything in 1 hour. I must sadly admit that there are things where even 1 day - or more - is not enough.)
So, putting all of this together, I was supposed to do 8 hours of work for the external customer (legible work, such as meetings and writing the code, not learning), and also learn for at least 1 hour, but this all taken together should not exceed 8 hours. And I should not be asking about obvious things.
Despite my autistic traits I already learned to recognize this pattern as "there is an answer, which is obvious to most people except for you, but the answer cannot be discussed explicitly, because some hypocrisy is involved". We can narrow it down to three possibilities:
The first option could be okay for a different company, but not that specific one, because we worked with some latest technologies there and had to be fluent at them. The second option is realistic (the customer will not find out the difference between 7 and 8 hours of typing code), assuming the learning is of the kind that you can fit into 1 hour at a time, because spending the entire day without coding would be visible at a daily standup. The third option... I believe is the one that most of my colleagues actually took.
From my perspective, the problem was ultimately solved by changing jobs, to get more slack.
This sounds like you are trying to say that there are no specific business-running skills, it is all just a question of motivation and ability to work hard. Apologies if I have strawmanned you. Could you please describe your model explicitly?
As a hypothetical example, imagine someone diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and ADHD, who during school keeps working 8 hours or more on their software development projects. This person gets extremely motivated by ideas of success and early retirement. They have no experience managing a company, and neither has anyone in their family or social group.
If such person starts a company, what probability of success do you estimate, and how many years do you expect it would take for that success to come (after how many years should the person give up if the success did not come)? Let's define "success" as the moment when the person keeps making 2x as much money as they would otherwise get in a job (with the same skills and the same hard work), and doesn't have to work more than 8 hours a day (this includes all work, such as doing their taxes, etc.).
I think I get most value from other people -- hearing about their perspective, getting encouragement and being kinda held responsible -- but it is difficult to meet the right kind of people.
Because lack of social skills makes it more difficult to figure out what other people want and how much they are lying when they say they want something, more difficult to convince people to buy your product instead of the competing products, etc.
To put it simply, I assume that in modern economy, the actual problem is selling stuff, not producing it. Things can be produced cheaply in China; software can be written by Indians or LLMs; apologies for the crude simplification. Some people make money selling worthless shit, such as homeopathy. Markets for useful things are oversaturated.
If you are good at selling, but you can't produce, you can hire someone to produce the stuff, or you can become someone's agent. If you are good at producing, but you can't sell, you can... get a job, or give it away for free and beg for money on Patreon (and even that is a kind of selling, because if you suck at self-promotion, people will simply ignore your Patreon account).
Jobs are the way to convert your production skills into income if you don't have the social skills.
Yes. Hours of work do not automatically translate to success. It is possible to spend two years working full-time on something that no one wants to buy, and maybe isn't even good enough (you mention skipping college, so we are talking about a person with high-school level skills and experience).