If the brain is a receiver, information transfer could happen non-locally and the tea might be telepathy, precognition, or remote viewing. In the split brain example, demonstrating an ability to coordinate between hemispheres in ways not predicted by neural separation might challenge the physical origin of consciousness as with the chicken and shovel anecdote.
Experiments demonstrating an external source of consciousness would be very interesting.
Suppose you do all kinds of studies and not show any telepathy, precog, or remote viewing. You could still say that the brain was only a receiver. None of that would disprove the "brain-as-consciousness-receiver" concept, you would just say that, I guess it is one way, no telepathy.
SOCRATES: Do you know how you can speak or act about rhetoric in a manner which will be acceptable to God?
PHAEDRUS: No, indeed. Do you?
SOCRATES: I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know; although if we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?
PHAEDRUS: Your question needs no answer; but I wish that you would tell me what you say that you have heard.
SOCRATES: At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
If a large fraction of the population can’t even hold five complex ideas in their head simultaneously, without confusing them after a few seconds, are they literate in the sense of e.g. reading Plato?
I hope they're literate to understand we're only reading about that alleged exchange because Plato wrote it down.
Median literacy in the US is famously somewhere around the 6th grade level, so it's unlikely most of the population is much troubled by the thoughts of Plato.
I looked up those stats. First of all, it is literacy in 'English'. A good portion of the country does not speak English at home. Second, it was assessed in 2003, and a disproportionate amount of those with 'below basic' prose literacy were over age 65 at the time. The assessment before was done in 1992 and there was an a marked increase in quantitative literacy between the two.
What makes an "idea" atomic/discrete/cardinal? What makes an idea "complex" vs simple or merely true? Over what finite duration of time does it count as "simultaneously" being held?
Just keep in mind that Plato and (especially) Socrates made a living by going against commonly held wisdom at the time, so this probably wasn't an especially widely held belief in ancient greece.
>> The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
That's perfectly true and the internet has made it even worse.
Not necessarily famous, but faces existing in training data or false positives making generalizations about faces based on similar characteristics to faces in training data. This becomes problematic for a number of reasons, e.g., this face looks dangerous or stupid or beautiful, etc.
At least as of 10-15 years ago US Cellular owned their rural markets and leased their urban markets. In NYC they are likely reselling Verizon’s network.
Research indicates that SUVs are indeed more dangerous to pedestrians compared to other vehicle types in the United States. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) highlighted that late-model SUVs are more likely to cause fatalities to pedestrians than cars. This is attributed to the higher front profile of SUVs, which tends to result in more severe injuries upon impact. The study found that at speeds greater than 19 mph, SUVs caused more serious injuries and were more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities compared to cars. Specifically, at speeds of 20-39 mph, 30% of crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 23% for cars. At speeds of 40 mph and above, all crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 54% with cars. This indicates a significant increase in the risk posed by SUVs at higher speeds[0].
Further research supports these findings, showing that trucks and SUVs with hood heights greater than 40 inches are about 45% more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than shorter vehicles with sloped hoods. The study, also by the IIHS, used data from nearly 18,000 crashes and noted that tall, squared-up hoods, characteristic of many best-selling SUVs and trucks, contribute significantly to the risk. The number of pedestrian deaths has significantly increased, with pedestrian fatalities jumping 13% to 7,342 in 2021, marking the highest number since 1981. This rise in pedestrian deaths has outpaced the increase in overall U.S. traffic deaths, highlighting a growing crisis in road safety related to larger vehicles[1].
These findings underscore the need for vehicle design changes to improve pedestrian safety, particularly as the proportion of SUVs on U.S. roads continues to rise. Despite advancements in vehicle safety that have reduced overall motor vehicle crash fatalities, the increased lethality of SUVs to pedestrians poses a significant challenge that requires attention from both manufacturers and regulatory bodies.
Good summary. Something ChatGPT missed is that SUV's are taller, and that tends to increase speed, because _perceived_ speed is lower the farther you are from the ground
And they present very little risk to pedestrians as a result. You're sitting LOWER than the pedestrians. You can see a bottle-cap on the road. You don't feel superior to anyone at all.
It’s funny, I’m often tempted to fact check data or lookup jargon, etc. and comment to save someone else the trouble. I once did this on the seriouseats subreddit with copy paste from a relatively reliable source and met with an insane heated argument over what amounted to semantics and a flurry of downvotes. I wonder if attribution to ChatGPT increases civility towards the commenter or if HN is just generally more civilized.
Lots of folks taking this approach and feels like the wrong entry point, e.g., similar to asking LLMs to generate bytecode when compilers exist or 3d printing a machine vs. building a machine from 3d printed components.
1. Business users aren’t prepared to talk to their data in meaningful ways and this is an opportunity for LLMs to enhance the way users ask questions.
2. SQL modeling languages exist (although I’m not sure there are well maintained open source good ones and this is the biggest obstacle to what I’m working on now) and LLMs can extend these effectively by adding components such as dimensions, metrics, relationships, filters, etc. with less chance of hallucination
3. Deterministic SQL generation from a modeling repository is easier to troubleshoot and provide guarantees than end-to-end generation.
4. Existing SQL can be parsed to generate modeling components that can be committed to the model repository with LLM assistance
5. Much of the richness of going to data to answer questions is context, e.g., how does this dept compare to others, this month to same month last year, etc. Modeling languages are good at expressing these transformations, but business users and often analysts aren’t good at capturing all the permutations of these types of comparisons. Another area where LLMs can help apply tooling.
IMO, LLMs are more effective at using tools than generating complex outputs.
Quite a number of studies suggest that chatbots are an effective tool for mental health support. Doesn’t need to be either or, but one could imagine scenarios where it may be more effective than a human mental health professional, e.g., 24/7 availability.
I do think there’s some nuance to that research though - just the act of typing out thoughts alone to a neutral party seems like it would be helpful, regardless of what’s said in response.
However, speaking personally - if I were suicidal, called an emergency line, and got connected to a computer instead of a person: that would feel like a brushoff and make things much, much worse.
My belief is that chatbots can be great for general mental health maintenance but are likely a massive liability for an acutely distressed population in the general case. I have zero faith in the US govt.’s implementation to respect that subtlety.
