I, erroneously, thought that "when Alice and Bob agree there's a 96% chance of them being correct, then surely you can leverage this to get above the 80% chance. What if we trust them both when they agree and trust Alice when they disagree?" Did some (erroneous) napkin math and went to write a simulation.
As I was writing the simulation I realized my error. I finished the simulation anyway, just because, and it has the expected 80% result on both of them.
My error: when we trust "both" we're also trusting Alice, which means that my case was exactly the same as just trusting Alice.
PS as I was writing the simulation I did a small sanity test of 9 rolls: I rolled heads 9 times in a row (so I tried it again with 100 million and it was a ~50-50 split). There goes my chance of winning the lottery!
I would caution that just because your body can make something doesn't mean it will have optimal performance when doing so. People in ketosis do have worse peak performance in sports than those that eat more carbs/sugar.
This is true, but I don't think our understanding of nutrition is good enough to really pick and choose what we want to optimize for. Eg we still don't have a recommendation on whether we should costume external vitamin K2 or not. The same goes for many amino acids. Some of the non-essential ones can have interesting effects when taken alone, eg glutamine - seems to help the gut lining. (We also don't know whether that's perfectly safe due to cancer risks, because some cancers eat glutamine.)
Your mind and health are impacted by your physical body. If eating a certain way impacts your physical performance then it might also have effects on your health (and mind) in unexpected ways.
I'm not saying that ketosis has this kind of an effect, but rather that eating or not eating some other things might. Eg vitamin K2. The body is be able to make vitamin K2, but we might have stronger bones and teeth, and a healthier cardiovascular system, if we get extra K2 from an external source.
But you are buying into viewing ads when you use services that show you ads.
Also, ad bazaars sound great until you realize that every locality needs to have their own bazaar. Seeing ads for New York barbers is kind of useless when you're in Los Angeles. Now you have a million ad bazaars and that's the only advertisement allowed. A little bit of corruption and your ads outshine all your competitors in that locality and they go out of business, since signs are an ad too.
Also also non-personalized ads mean that the only things that can be advertised online are digital goods or things that are available globally. Basically, it will work for Amazon and AliExpress but that's about it. And adsls in Russian or Japanese or Korean or German or French or Swedish or Portuguese aren't going to be that useful for you, are they? Ads in English but for a product in another country might be even worse.
I'm not making a moral judgement here. I'm talking about sending a signal that this type of content is valuable to make, leading to more content of that type being made.
They're on YouTube because it's the platform that gives them the greatest chance of success. What other popular video platforms do you know that give you 55% of the ad revenue?
Because a few dollars here and there very quickly adds up, especially for people in poorer countries. It's also much harder to get people to spend money online. I bet if you could physically buy the suffrage for $1-5 people would be far more likely to pay for it.
An important thing to add: the gaming industry was basically the R&D that (partly) led to this AI in the first place. GPUs were gaming devices first and foremost. The programmable pipeline came about because people wanted their video games to look better.
Furthermore, Stable Diffusion was (is) absolutely a large component to all of this. And a lot of that effort was grass roots: random people online can't together to figure out ways to generate better images.
It would be quite ironic if the next revolution comes about on Intel or AMD (or some Chinese company's) hardware because those GPUs were more affordable.
The (wedding) photographer is likely going to use this AI themselves though. They used Photoshop way back in the day to touch up images. They're going to be doing the same with genAI. Content-aware fill is one of the most useful tools they have.
As I was writing the simulation I realized my error. I finished the simulation anyway, just because, and it has the expected 80% result on both of them.
My error: when we trust "both" we're also trusting Alice, which means that my case was exactly the same as just trusting Alice.
PS as I was writing the simulation I did a small sanity test of 9 rolls: I rolled heads 9 times in a row (so I tried it again with 100 million and it was a ~50-50 split). There goes my chance of winning the lottery!
reply