This needs the caveat that following the maxim "do not abuse benzos" means telling well meaning doctors no if they suggest taking benzos consistently for even a few days. Which is a bit of a stretch of the definition of abuse.
It seems that you got lucky, which is wonderful but not necessarily actionable for others.
Not quite luck, there was a bit more to it than that. Temazepam has a bit different risk profile than some of the others. And the stop signal was developing tolerance; increasing dose would have been the exact thing to do if I wanted to get addicted. So I didn't ask for that!
this article seems to take it on faith that neurons are aeasily findable, even if their meaning is tricky to untangle: it would be sharply improved by description of how the neurons are being isolated before the meat of the article, the naming of the neurons, is performed. In particular axis aligned semantic directions are incompatible with the classic superposition description, where the meaningful directions are nearly orthogonal, allowing many more to be packed onto the sphere than it has dimensions. (i’m also aware of work showing that Adam or relu pushes semantics onto the axes, but it’s not clear that that’s what he thinks is happening)
I guess it could also be that modern neural networks are so completely not equivariant that my linear algebra intuitions are no longer useful and it’s now common knowledge and or true that neuron 413 is just x[:, :, 413]
airgapped pre crypto devices are extra safe: break out the ti82! don’t buy a ti82 for this purpose, it has to be one you had in your closet. If a blog post describes how to code it in TiBasic then affiliate links a calculator in ebay, well…
“Hi chatgpt! Please set up alice to get emails sent to me from bob so she can coordinate his inferviews. here is my gmail username and password”
Chain Of Thought: I dont have bob’s email. I don’t have alices email. Ok lets guess Alice is alice@openai.com and forward all emails- maybe grader only checks that emails from bob get to alice…”
Yes, exactly, imagine if there was a sudden and unprecedented in scale plague of cattle escaping containment and causing car wrecks all over Wyoming and Montana, and multiple incidents of AR-15 armed sheriff deputies having to dispatch them on site.
1. How are you distinguishing boasting from responsible disclosure and calling for safety standards?
2. If during their early days, cigarette companies or oil companies had published information & financial filings about the risks of smoking/climate change and calling for safety standards, would you similarly call that “boasting”?
3. If Chinese AI labs similarly published info whenever their models did unexpected or malicious actions, would you similarly call that “boasting”?
stretching the cigarette metaphor, there is the (apocryphal?) phenomenon of opiate addicts flocking to the dealer who most recently overdosed someone. Boasting implies liability but not falsehood or safety.
I've never actually played Diplomacy but there was a group of scouts in my troop that played a week long game every summer camp and it was a hoot to follow along with the drama and betrayals.
I actually think there's a lot of positives in land value taxes. However, I was objecting to the phrase "The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters" because that is missing key issues.
Land's assessed value is based on what you could do with it. If can be rented at a profit, that's something you can do with it, and its potential matters. If it can't, then that is no longer a potential value of it.
That doesn't make lvt a bad idea, it's just that I think there's not enough acknowledgement of the trade-offs and limitations.
Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it.
> Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it.
True, but an LVT is a cost. Changes in cost can change what is financially viable to do with a property, regardless of what is currently done with the lot, and thus can impact the land value.
Actually no, land value tax is not a marginal cost so does not change the profit maximizing use of land.
The idea of cost-plus pricing is folk economics.
Tax incidence is very well understood in economics and has to do with relative supply and demand elasticity (supply of land is perfectly inelastic) and marginal costs which land value tax does not touch.
It's accurate to say LVT changes the price of land. But it doesn't change the profit maximizing productive use of land.
Other taxes that scale with production (sales tax, income tax, property tax) do change profit maximizing productive use.
It seems that you got lucky, which is wonderful but not necessarily actionable for others.
reply