https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/StoioB9Tv9uyMbkLW/the-spectrum-of-attention-from-empathy-to-hypnosis says
The thing that makes hypnosis so bizarre and seemingly powerful is it's ability to keep attention, [...] [...] In full blown hypnosis [...] they are putting their attention where I specify without doubt or hesitation.
This sounds like it corresponds to "the idea of a state of focused attention", so I don't understand why you rejected it. Just because he talks about it as a spectrum (vs a state)? Or something else?
I tried several things without success (each in Claude Opus 4.1, Gemini Pro 2.5, and GPT-5):
Yeah, for now you probably need something more specialized. https://electricalexis.github.io/notagen-demo/ can compose music of semi-decent quality, so with the right training a model ought to be able to manage recognition too (although more unconventional music would be harder).
that I wrote out twice as fast as it actually goes,
Music notation rhythms are relative, so I don't think this has a real meaning? Like, it might be nicer to use half notes as the main beat, and write the tune mostly in quarters, as you did in the Musescore typeset version. But the hand-written version using eighth notes to a quarter note beat conveys basically the same thing (ignoring the triplet issue).
Your last two Musescore files are missing some separation between 1st and 2nd endings. Compare the images at https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/voltas
Underdogs lose. If you win, you weren't the underdog.
Is it not more like, p(underdog_loses) > 0.5? Sometimes the thing with lesser probability happens even if the prediction was well-calibrated.
I don't think this interpretation can hold up: the body of titotal's post doesn't deal with the good vs bad timeline. It's just about the uncertainty of modelling AI progress which applies for both the good and bad timelines.
I think it's an intentional pun, like, "whether forecasters" are people who predict whether something will happen or not.
What about tuning the fiddle strings down 1 tone?
I see that it's a bit ambiguous, but I read "to his face" as most likely referring to Einstein's face, which is consistent with your interpretation of Wigner.