aio
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
cool guy
serial killer
serial killer
In his very lukewarm defense, the rough CS equivalent to publishing a paper in a journal is presenting your paper at a conference. According to DBLP he has had three papers in AGI '06 '07 and '11 (which i would not call a serious conference) and one workshop paper (generally a tier below actual acceptance to the conference) at AAAI '15.
Ah okay, I didn't realize that.
It's not quite clear to me that
We rely on some standard LLM detectors to focus our attention on papers that need to be checked.
implies they are using LLMs themselves. The phrase "LLM detector" is a bit ambiguous and could mean "LLM being used as a detector" or just "classifier program designed to detect LLM output".
im smarter than everyone else around me, especially those whiny feminists. why hasn't society granted me a female to be my mate yet?
As I explained elsewhere, my comment was just about the inapplicability of mathematics to this question. But also, is that really what morality always says? What if polls predict 1% will vote blue? What if they predict only one other person will vote blue? Are you always obligated to martyr yourself?
You're the one who mentioned "game theory" in the first place, I was just directly quoting you. My sentence was of the form "game theory doesn't say X", not "game theory does say Y". I added quotation marks to clarify.
My point here is that you can make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments about the situation you want, but none of game theory, Arrow's theorem, nor the concept of a dictator have any bearing on it. It is an ethics question rather than a mathematical question, and it is an error to claim that your argument is a mathematical one.
If polls predict 40% blue you should not vote blue "as a matter of game theory", because that is suicide.
I don't understand the relevance of Arrow's theorem. Why is your phrasing the correct way of analyzing the situation?
i can kinda understand "liking the idea" in the same way that I "like" the very simple currency systems in single-player video games, where you do work (fight monsters, collect items, win Pokemon battles) and are automatically rewarded with currency you can use to buy items, which are always reasonably-priced because the game developers balanced it that way. It's just that these systems have nothing to do with reality. But that simplistic view of money is pretty much all that's left of cryptocurrencies if you look past the get-rich-quick scheme.
✍️🔥 thank you i will never be able to un-see it