All of XelaP's Comments + Replies

XelaP10

For a treatment besides Tamiflu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic cites the who and CDC stating that H1N1 developed resistance to Tamiflu but not Relenza

In December 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 314 samples of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 flu tested worldwide have shown resistance to oseltamivir (Tamiflu).[172] It is not totally unexpected as 99.6% of the seasonal H1N1 flu strains tested have developed resistance to oseltamivir.[173] No circulating flu has yet shown any resistance to zanamivir (Relenza), the other avai

... (read more)
XelaP-12

I often find illustrative explanations like these either obvious or useless. But this was amazing! Those venn diagrams really are an extremely simple and intuitive and beautiful way to see Shapley values!

XelaP10

I think it makes sense to include the podcasts that aren't currently updating - for example, Rationally Speaking's old episodes. Affix needs a new link or an archived version, as the episodes are not listed at the current link, and I'm too lazy to track down the episodes.

XelaP10

I basically agree. The following is speculation/playing with an idea, not something I think is likely true.

Imagine it's the future. It becomes clear that a lab could easily create mirror bacteria if they wanted to, or even deliberately create mirror pathogens. It may even get to the point where countries explicitly threaten to do this.

At that point, it might be a good idea to develop mirror life for the purposes of developing countermeasures.

I'm not that familiar with how modern vaccines and drugs are made. Can a vaccine be made without involving a living cell? What about an antibiotic?

Answer by XelaP10

There's The Bayesian Conspiracy's discord server. No need to listen to the podcast or to related podcasts to participate in discussion.

XelaP10

They don't need to solve the whole Halting Problem, for the same reason you don't need to contradict Rice's theorem if you had some proof (which I take as an axiom for the sake of the hypothetical) that the predictor was in fact perfect and that it is utility maximizing. Also, we can just try saying that there is a high probability that they will do this. Furthermore, you can imagine a restricted subset of Turing machines for which the Halting problem is computable. But also the only computers that exist in reality are really finite state machines.

XelaP10

Well, the perplexing situation doesn't actually happen if the predictors are good enough, because they'll predict you both won't update and won't take the bet. Thus you'll never have been approached in the first place.

XelaP50

There's 148.94 million km^2 of Earth land area, not ~500 million as you claim (which is about the entire surface area of the earth).

XelaP20

I assume your proposal requires trades be public, so that someone exploiting a proof to get free money ends up revealing the proof to others.

Until computerized theorem proving vastly improves, this system will only prove statements after the first proof is accepted.

XelaP30

This is a very good collection and distillation of rational college advice. However, there is very little advice from you, about your year, advice that's the title made me expect.

XelaP30

I mention this because sometimes in rationalist contexts, I've felt a pressure to not talk about models that are missing Gears. I don't like that. I think that Gears-ness is a really super important thing to track, and I think there's something epistemically dangerous about failing to notice a lack of Gears. Clearly noting, at least in your own mind, where there are and aren't Gears seems really good to me. But I think there are other capacities that are also important when we're trying to get epistemology right


A good way to notice the lack of gears is to ... (read more)

XelaP170

They aren't. brook is saying that picking locks might damage them, and damaging locks not in use at worst means you have to throw away a padlock, whereas damaging locks in use might mean you can't open your front door.

6brook
This is exactly what I'm saying. Using machines in ways they're not made for is especially risky when the machine controls access to your house. 
2purge
Yes--if a bit of your wrench breaks off inside the lock, the key may not fit anymore.  Also (and more likely, as I understand it) picking the lock will wear down edges of the various parts, making it even easier for someone else to pick.
XelaP10

Woah, just on a watch-like device! How far along is this technology?

XelaP10

If this has been a thing for 30 years, why is the hardware best-in-class? Also, is there a presentation that is more impressive/innovative but perhaps less theatrical?

5Rabrg
The hardware should be best-in-class due to the massive amount of channels (over 1,000), and the fact that each channel is surgically implanted into the head. For comparison, 16 channels is on the high end for consumer-grade BCI kits, and each channel is a sensor that rests on top of the skin. As far as why they aren't making use of its capabilities to do something more impressive, I don't know.  For what I would consider a more technically impressive presentation, see this video of a man controlling two prosthetics in 3d space to slice bread.
3Dustin
I assume because Musk put a lot of money into it and got the right people together. I think that monkey video is the most advanced thing Neuralink has put out.
XelaP60

I think it is best to try to edit it anyway. I think if you have already seen the post, it does not take that long to see that there isn't a line added that is trolly. Also, you should do it for the sake of mathematical accuracy.

1Jan Christian Refsgaard
Thanks, also thanks for pointing out that I had written p(θ∣y) a few places instead of p(y∣θ), since everything is the bernoulli distribution I have changed everything to p
XelaP10

Hey! There are at least 3 channels where TBC-and-related-podcast-content is discussed!

(though, if you are only talking about the TBC podcast and not other podcasts hosted by the same people and that are plugged in the same places, then yes, there is only one channel).

XelaP00

I cannot speak for Scott, but I can speculate. I am quite sure a rock doesn't have qualia, because it doesn't have any processing center, gives no sign of having any utility to maximize, and has no reaction to stimuli. It most probably doesn't have a mind.