> I asked a model to evaluate your comment history and it found loads of patterns such as
> “I’m not sure…” / “I don’t…” hedges before disagreement Negation followed by correction/reframing is a recurring structure: essentially “It’s not X, it’s Y”.
I did a manual human dig through GP's profile and I don't see any evidence supporting this. The literal strings "I'm not sure" and "I don't" do appear a lot (also in replies, which I'm hoping your LLM was intelligent enough to exclude?), and they are used to hedge before making a statement, but not a single one of them even approaches the "It's not X, it's Y" thing your LLM has claimed they do.
Your LLM did not find dozens of examples, it told you it did and you didn't even bother to check.
The slugs in your soil carry a parasite which can cause lifelong paralysis if it enters your body, a lot of the worms do too. Those decomposing leaves carry tetanus. Your perspective is not aligned with reality.
The keybindings (and lack of documentation for them) in Finder sucks, having to google how to show hidden files in a save dialogue every time I have to do it sucks, having to search through the UI every time for the non-obvious way to get to a specific path sucks. Do I need to mention .DS_Store?
There are loads of different file managers for many different operating systems, they look and act the way they do from years of refining UX in response to the way users actually interact with them. This is why the file manager on my android phone is so similar to the one on my windows machine, and my linux install. All of them are different to Finder which appeared to lock some UX decisions in circa 1990 and then refuse to budge, this is why Finder sucks.
It's the one OS where file and folder manipulation via the terminal is actually sometimes faster for me, no need to go digging for the specific ritual Finder uses in opposition to every other file manager to do the task.
> One should question the rate of which it is diagnosed, and who is getting diagnosed.
The medical consensus after multiple enquiries in the UK has come to:
1. The rate of diagnosis is far too low (the evidence of this being we're catching people as adults who should've been caught as children).
2. Our diagnostic criteria aren't inclusive enough (we have historically missed inattentive presenting ADHD, we have historically missed ADHD presenting in women)
These results are politically unpalatable so the enquiry is I think currently being run for the third time, but signs point to ADHD overdiagnosis being a hoax/fake news/whatever you call it.
The issue is that ADHD is not real in the organic sense. Well, at least the evidence is scant. It's more of a description than a disorder. It's not something one "has."
I like to compare ADHD to racial categorization of people. Race is not real in a biological sense, but it's definitely real in a social sense.
I am probably butchering what I am trying to say so, just read this if you want to understand someone(s) that can communicate eloquently.
The set of symptoms is roughly recognizable and treatment protocols are established. There's some data and bad theories, and informed consent based on all this. (Imagine how informed the patient can be downstream of this!)
So yes, just as with depression, where we have only very crude understanding of how SSRIs work. We have the RCTs, cohort studies, and we know that it's better than placebo.
Some people fight with depression through their whole life. Just as with ADHD.
As with Alzheimer's we are painfully in the dark with regards to etiology, prevention and treatment, but that doesn't mean it's not real.
There's multiple Alzheimer's (there's the early onset familial version, and it has something to do with APOE4 / amyloid, but there's the rest which is a big question mark), it's also not real yet, because the biomarkers we have are almost useless. Still we try what makes sense, and try to help people who are suffering from it. Same as with ADHD.
And just as the heritability of any complex behavior (intelligence and susceptibility to depression) is not a simple thing it doesn't mean it's not real.
> Some people fight with depression through their whole life. Just as with ADHD.
See I just don't think they're even similar. How is being sometimes (and sometimes is the operative word in ADHD) unable to follow instructions, forgetting things, having social anxiety, putting things off etc anything like the depression from being abused as a child?
I think a lot of the symptoms of ADHD are just underperforming "neurotypicals". Struggling is not an illness. Finding things hard doesn't mean you have an innate inability to do them, in sorry to tell you
> See I just don't think they're even similar. How is being sometimes (and sometimes is the operative word in ADHD) unable to follow instructions, forgetting things, having social anxiety, putting things off etc anything like the depression from being abused as a child?
Untreated ADHD is associated with a literal doubling in your suicide risk compared to your peers.
> and sometimes is the operative word in ADHD
No it isn't? I think you need to go and research what ADHD actually is, you appear to have formed an opinion without good foundations.
> These results are politically unpalatable so the enquiry is I think currently being run for the third time, but signs point to ADHD overdiagnosis being a hoax/fake news/whatever you call it.
And here's one for you: hundreds of thousands of scroungers and workshy young adults are saying they have ADHD to get pip and other perks... Because this is even less of a charade than back pain used to be, you can legit go on holiday with ADHD, they even give people mobility passes in the UK for ADHD, screwing over people in actual wheelchairs who really do suffer in society
> I have always suspected that people with “aphantasia” simply misunderstand the idea of a “mind’s eye,” believing that others can somehow superimpose something onto their actual field of vision at will. Of course, this is not possible.
If "at will" is the hinging point then maybe not because the scenario to trigger the behaviour isn't clear to me still, but this is definitely possible.
I have had the superimposed belief-image confuse my spatial brain until I moved my point of view (in which the real world obviously reorients while the brain conjured image doesn't) to clear it before. This happened far more when I was younger than now as an adult, but it very much still happens.
The very last time I recall this happening was at my former home during a strenuous house move. I was on my back for a breather between boxes and a delay getting the car around gave me some time for my mind to wander, which it did on that occasion to thoughts about how very old buildings with column supports used to look. By the time I needed to move the next box I had to shake my head to de-conjure the little stone plinths that had appeared in my vision from my imagination trip.
This same behaviour does actually persist in other areas. I'm colourblind, even as an adult I have other people argue that perhaps I just don't know which colours are which rather than have a problem with the mechanism within the eye for detecting them.
Do children make their own medical decisions? Does society have no responsibility for historically relentlessly discouraging medication?
In my post history on this site I recall interacting with a user who had debilitating ADHD and was desperately asking people who had been medicated for ADHD what the best non-medication approach they'd tried was. He didn't care if the attempt was a complete failure, he wanted the most "successful" complete failure. He was resolute, he would never try medication because if it worked he might not be able to stop himself from taking it in the future.
What exactly are we doing? We are afraid of dulling the sparkle for a group who when left to their down devices (read: neglected) disproportionately end up homeless or in prison.
> if your cat bites someone no one is responsible.
I had to double take there. Its because of the dangerous dogs act.
However there appears to be a nuance that if your cat is know to be a bitey little shit, and you let it out to into a situation where it might bite someone then you are responsible.
I think it gets murky if you are taking your animal into other people's property though. On your own property you have a duty of care to visitors (ie hidden man traps are not allowed, but clearly marked and cordoned off bottomless pits are)
Considering the saying that dogs have masters and cats have slaves, not only you are not responsible if your cat bites someone but your cat should also be responsible if you bite someone.
As for agents, it depends on your relationship with it. For now, most people command agents, so the dog rule should apply. But if you believe the "superintelligence" crowd, we should apply the cat rule soon.
If you are out walking your cat, and the cat bites someone, you should be responsible for that... I suspect the ruling distinguishes between pets that are out in public, vs generally private.
But laws don't have to make sense to be laws... we have lots of nonsense laws.
> If you are out walking your cat, and the cat bites someone, you should be responsible for that... I suspect the ruling distinguishes between pets that are out in public, vs generally private.
The distinction is in the responsibility it's reasonable for the cat owner to take vs the dog owner. Cats are free spirits, if your cat decides to pop out the cat flap for a fight there's really not much you can do about that. The law isn't even 100% on what to do when your cat decides to go and live in another house down the road. Are those homeowners involuntary bailees or thieves?
It turns out applying laws for a controlled animal (dogs) doesn't work, so the best we can do is try for half-way between a pet and property. My expectation is that AI is similar and there is no "aha, it's so easy, just do as we do for foo" as is proposed.
Really? You can’t be sued for, say, doctor bills incurred by your cat scratching or biting someone so badly they need stitches, when you failed to take reasonable care of the cat and knew it had a tendency to bite and scratch people?
If it's only occasional use then you're actually using the button sometimes and having it cover a chunk of every single picture you look at, all the time. It can go in a sub-menu.
> “I’m not sure…” / “I don’t…” hedges before disagreement Negation followed by correction/reframing is a recurring structure: essentially “It’s not X, it’s Y”.
I did a manual human dig through GP's profile and I don't see any evidence supporting this. The literal strings "I'm not sure" and "I don't" do appear a lot (also in replies, which I'm hoping your LLM was intelligent enough to exclude?), and they are used to hedge before making a statement, but not a single one of them even approaches the "It's not X, it's Y" thing your LLM has claimed they do.
Your LLM did not find dozens of examples, it told you it did and you didn't even bother to check.
reply