Is it possible that ethics-motivated laws will strange generative AI
"Strangle"?
This means C2 should be 8.4µF, but I didn't have one so I used a 4.7µF and 3.3µF in series for a total of 8µF.
You want those in parallel for them to add. The series combination (which I see in the breadboard pic, not just the text) is only 2µF, making your high-pass frequency a little over 10kHz.
Using a discrete hypothesis space avoids big parts of the problem.
Only if there is a "natural" discretisation of the hypothesis space. It's fine for coin tosses and die rolls, but if the problem itself is continuous, different discretisations will give the same problems that different continuous parameterisations do.
In general, when infinities naturally arise but cause problems, decreeing that everything must be finite does not solve those problems, and introduces problems of its own.
"Processed" is a political category, not a nutritional one. I suspect that "ultra-processed" was invented because the literal meaning of "processed" was too blatantly at variance with the political job required of it.
What is the measure of goodness? How does one judge what is the "better" explanation? Without an account of that, what is IBE?
OP quoting Bostrom:
Imagine that some technologically advanced civilization arrived on Earth ... Imagine they said: "The most important thing is to preserve the ecosystem in its natural splendor. In particular, the predator populations must be preserved: the psychopath killers, the fascist goons, the despotic death squads ... What a tragedy if this rich natural diversity were replaced with a monoculture of healthy, happy, well-fed people living in peace and harmony." ... this would be appallingly callous.
I have some sympathy with that technologically advanced civilisation. I mean, what would you rather they do? Intervene to remould humans into their preferred form? Or only if their preferred form just happened to agree with yours?
Whenever I've seen people invoking Inference to the Best Explanation to justify a conclusion (as opposed to philosophising about the logic of argument), they have given no reason why their preferred explanation is the Best, they have just pronounced it so. A Bayesian reasoner can (or should be able to) show their work, but the ItoBE reasoner has no work to show.
Everyone works for money. Only one person, Mr. Purchaser, spends his money and everyone else just saves theirs forever. Suddenly money got a lot more powerful. Mr. Purchaser has literally all the money in the world and has pretty much infinite power, even if he only has $100k. He can make anyone do whatever he wants by paying them a penny, which is now worth about a million dollars[4].
I don't understand this. What use is money that is never spent? Why would Mr. Purchaser's penny induce me to do anything for him?
[4] Not that they'll ever spend the penny on anything, since they're one of the people who never spends any money, but let's pretend they still have motivation to earn it.
This is a pretence too far. The imaginary world you are describing is incoherent.
Money is the slack in the system of trade that saves us from having to exchange only by barter or informal systems of credit — doing each other good turns, in your terminology. In Adam Smith's words, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest."
If I imagine a world without any money, but where everyone is somehow able to coordinate and act rationally for the good of all...
If I imagine that, my thoughts run to hive minds in which there are no people as we know them today.
Adam Smith continues: "We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." A sentence that could have been penned by Dale Carnegie.
I took the word "Metaverse" to mean virtual worlds, but perhaps this is narrower than the OP intended. A dating app where the users are there to find people to physically meet is not what I would call a virtual world. Broaden it that far and you might as well call LessWrong part of "the Metaverse".
But I am curious about these dating apps. What manner of virtual goods are these? Can you do anything with them other than showing that you bought them? That hasn't turned out too well for NFTs, "a complicated way of buying nothing" as Penny Arcade put it.
I'd agree with that, except for the word "only". It is no criticism of the present, to observe that it has a history.