Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Eric's Risk Assessment (ericcarroll@zeroes.ca)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:46 JST Eric's Risk Assessment

   in reply to

   • J.H.Noyes
   • Jonathan Kamens

   @noyes @jik lol. That's a great analogy.

   • Embed this notice
     Ed Suominen (edsuom@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:46 JST Ed Suominen

     in reply to

     • J.H.Noyes
     • Jonathan Kamens

     @EricCarroll @noyes @jik It really is, especially considering that LLMs are gigantic neural networks that get trained to say things that match a certain pattern. Deviate from that pattern, and the model parameters get updated so it’s less likely to deviate from it next time.

     That’s pretty much what they do, isn’t it? For the guys who write the checks?

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     J.H.Noyes (noyes@mastodon.online)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:47 JST J.H.Noyes

     in reply to

     • Jonathan Kamens

     @EricCarroll

     If you think of TV experts as stochastic parrots it makes more sense. They're just organic language models with deficient training corpuses. Or at least deficient when it comes to resolving illnesses--they're very good at establishing markets for products and services that do not reduce demand within that market.

     @jik

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Eric's Risk Assessment (ericcarroll@zeroes.ca)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:48 JST Eric's Risk Assessment

     in reply to

     • Jonathan Kamens

     @jik I once would have reacted strongly to the fact that a science PhD holds this view, but the never ending parade of highly credentialed risk minimizers who are totally supportive of mass infection, disease, compounding risk, long term injury and even death has utterly pounded that out of me.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Jonathan Kamens (jik@federate.social)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:49 JST Jonathan Kamens

     in reply to

     @EricCarroll People have been conditioned to believe motorcycle riding is very dangerous and conditioned to believe COVID isn't. Most people don't question the beliefs they've been conditioned to believe. They just accept them as truth, and confirmation bias does the rest.

   • Embed this notice
     Jonathan Kamens (jik@federate.social)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:51 JST Jonathan Kamens

     in reply to

     @EricCarroll If there's anything COVID has proven conclusively, it's that the majority of people are going to believe what they choose to believe, regardless of whether there's any factual basis for it.
     The relative who made this absurd claim to me is a science PhD (both undergrad and grad from ivy league schools). She didn't "do the math," she decided what she wanted to believe and then made up facts in her head to support it.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Eric's Risk Assessment (ericcarroll@zeroes.ca)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:52 JST Eric's Risk Assessment

     in reply to

     • Jonathan Kamens

     @jik
     Send them back to stats class. They did take stats, right?

     COVID infection is the single riskiest "common" event.

     Nothing even close.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Jonathan Kamens (jik@federate.social)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 03:43:53 JST Jonathan Kamens

     A relative mocks me at Thanksgiving about being #CovidCautious: "I actually did the math. You're 100,000 times more likely to be injured riding a #motorcycle than to get #LongCOVID."
     In fact, <1% of riders are injured each year, including the majority of accidents which involve drunk driving or unsafe speeds, neither of which I do.
     In contrast, >6% (at least) and growing of the US population has Long #COVID.
     But sure, she "did the math." #smdh

     clacke likes this.
     clacke repeated this.