It's not at the language level, but for python JAX has the notion of a pytree (arbitrarily nested combination of lists, dicts, and tuples), and includes map and reduce operations for those objects. It's very convenient!
This is clearly just wishful thinking by the article author. Jeff Bezos would show himself to be a coward by... Not doing something he wasn't planning on doing in the first place?
Bezos recently said the WaPo opinion section would focus on "personal liberties and free markets", yet with Amazon he is not doing this. If Bezos cares about free markets so much, he would be fighting the tariffs rather than cozying up to a wanna be dictator. If Bezos actually believed in personal liberties, he would state that the White House has no business in commenting on how prices are displayed at their business.
"oligarchy" is increasing in word usage for a reason
Are you sure you aren’t just falling into the “it’s all llm” trap? A lot of common writing styles are similar, and the most common ones are what LLMs imitate. I often am accused of llm writing. I don’t publish llm text because I think it is a social harm, so it’s pretty demoralising to have people call out my writing as “”llm slop”. OTOH, I have a few books published and people seem to find them handy, so there’s that.
Don't take it too hard. I've seen someone accused of using an LLM to write something because they correctly used an oxford comma. It's definitely the trap.
Yup i independently noticed passages with phrases and word choice mimicking llms. Certainly just used for assistance though, the writing is too good overall.
> To answer this, we'll start by attacking Conway's Game of Life - perhaps the most iconic cellular automata, having captivated researchers for decades
> At the heart of this project lies...
> his powerful paradigm, pioneered by Mordvintsev et al., represents a fundamental shift in...
(Not only is this clearly LLM-style, I doubt someone working in a group w/ Mordvintsev would write this)
> Traditional cellular automata have long captivated...
> In the first stage, each cell perceives its environment. Think of it as a cell sensing the world around it.
> To do this, it uses Sobel filters, mathematical tools designed to numerically approximate spatial gradients
Mathematical tools??? This is a deep learning paper my guy.
> Next, the neural network steps in.
...
And it just keeps going. If you ask ChatGPT or Claude to write an essay for you, this is the style you get. I suffered through it b/c again, I really like Mordvintsev's work and have been following this line of research for a while, but it feels pretty rude to make people read this.
Yeah, it’s disheartening that people often think my writing (most of it predates gpt3) is llm, and some of my favourite writers also fall under this wet blanket. LLMs just copy the most common writing style, so now if you write in a common way you are “llm”.
I’ve also had my writing misidentified as being LLM-produced on multiple occasions in the last month. Personally, I don’t really care if some writing is generated by AI if the contents contain solid arguments and reasoning, but when you haven’t used generative AI in the production of something it’s a weird claim to respond to.
Before GPT3 existed, I often received positive feedback about my writing and now it’s quite the opposite.
I’m not sure whether these accusations of AI generation are from genuine belief (and overconfidence) or some bizarre ploy for standing/internet points. Usually these claims of detecting AI generation get bolstered by others who also claim to be more observant than the average person. You can know they’re wrong in cases where you wrote something yourself but it’s not really provable.
I've read a _lot_ of deep learning papers, and this is extremely atypical. I agree with you that if there were any sort of serious implications then it'd be important to establish proof, but in the case of griping on a forum I think the standard of evidence is much lower.
A lot of these are very close to stuff I have written. Not saying this piece did or didn't get a pass through an LLM, I have no idea, but it really makes me wonder how many people accuse me of using an LLM when it's just how I write.
I feel awful for anyone going to school now, or will be in the future. I probably would have been kicked out, seeing how easily people say "LLM" whenever they read some common phrasing, a particular word, structure of the writing, etc.
Ran the entire text through Claude 3.7 to evaluate style. Anyone on HN can do the same.
I’d rather hear about the content instead of this meta analysis on editorial services. Writers used to have professional copy editors with wicked fine-tipped green pens. Now we expect more incompetence from humans. Let me add some more typos to this comment.
Yeah I think every lab would love to do this and the field has been thinking about it forever. (Search lifelong learning or continual learning on Google Scholar). I don't think a technological solution is likely enough that we should pursue it instead of social solutions.
If you find this appealing, make sure to do it with a medical professional. If you still want to try it by yourself, read Felix Hill's suicide note first.
I'm sure it's legitimate. People posted it a few times to HN but it didn't get much discussion. I'm ambivalent about that. It's a fascinating, heartbreaking and gutwrenching document. But given the research on suicide (Werther Effect, etc.) it's probably best not to publicly feature it.
i generally consider myself an enemy of psychedelic advocates, because I think they want to make it effectively socially mandatory to do these drugs, which is really bad.
("sure, it's your choice what you put in your body, but a really enlightened person wouldn't be so frightened and closed-minded that they don't want to see what psychedelics can show them...")
of course ketamine for depression has this giant downside risk of adverse effects and psychosis, and we should talk about it more, not just sell it as a safe miracle drug.
however... safe, neutral, bland, boring well-tolerated SSRIs, also have a massive downside risk, in that they can trigger a manic episode, which in severe cases also involves psychosis.
so i find myself in the position of being glad there are different depression treatments for different people, including psychedelics and dissociatives, and hopefully we can find a way to make sure people get sorted to the treatments where they are least exposed to the tail risk side effects.
There are countless heartbreaking stories of people who were prescribed these drugs not knowing what they were subscribing to. In many cases, the effects of those drugs are worse than the symptoms they are supposed to alleviate. With "I Don't Wanna Be Me" there's even a song by Type O Negative (from Peter Steele's own experience with Prozac) about the devastating effects SSRIs can have on a person's life.
These drugs are handed out like candy while the physicians prescribing them often point-blank deny any side effects or even attribute those to the illness they are meant to treat.
Psychedelics, on the other hand, have actually been proven to be effective for many syndromes SSRIs are commonly used for and by comparison are very safe when used with proper preparation, medical surveillance, and in the right setting.
The only reason psychedelics are still widely shunned is a Puritan attitude to human well-being: You're not supposed to feel better than the common neutral base level. Any drugs achieving that (alongside with other, more specific and intended medical effects) are maligned and ostracized.
this is more or less exactly what i was trying to say. for most people SSRIs are safe, they experience manageable side effects and little health risk. psychedelics and dissociatives seem like they must be really drastic and risky. but actually SSRIs are pretty risky too, there are all these terrible low-probability outcomes.
so it's good we have all options, but ideally we'd have a better way of judging who is safest with which treatment.
With SSRIs you have a one in three chance for any number of the following side effects; many of them permanent, even after discontinuing medication (if you actually manage to do so, since SSRI come with severe withdrawal symptoms):
- sexual dysfunction
- loss of emotion and creativity
- drowsiness
- insomnia (including real fun stuff like night terrors)
- fatigue
- nausea
- tremors
I'd hardly call that safe or manageable.
With even the most potent psychedelics such as LSD, on the other hand, there's merely a one in thousand chance for severe side effects.
I'd go as far as prohibiting the prescription of SSRIs for all but the most severe cases (such as a severe depression where the patient is actually suicidal). For everything else these drugs are commonly used for, e.g., mild depression, OCD, or IBS, there are other - in many cases better - options with far less devastating (if any) adverse effects.
Almost none of these would be permanent, and you certainly don't have a 1 in 3 chance of them being permanent. Where did you get that number?
> With even the most potent psychedelics such as LSD, on the other hand, there's merely a one in thousand chance for severe side effects.
This is fucking nuts. We're in a thread about how taking too much can clearly cause weeks of psychosis, and how easy it is to do that. There's nothing wrong with warning about the risks of SSRIs, but to claim you have a 1 in 3 chance of having permanent nausea while, in the same breath, claiming psychedelics are 100x safer, is beyond irresponsible.
> in the same breath, claiming psychedelics are 100x safer, is beyond irresponsible.
Stating mere facts isn't irresponsible and those are the facts:
When taking SSRIs you have a one in three chance to permanently and severely change your life for the worse.
When taking LSD you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of suffering a psychotic break.
What's irresponsible - and unethical - is twisting and misrepresenting these facts - to the extent of outright lying about the purported innocuousness of SSRI, as is wont in the psychiatric community.
> Sexual dysfunction caused by SSRIs in many cases persists for the rest of the patient's life
You said most symptoms were permanent, don't back down now. Sexual Dysfunction is a pretty broad term, how would you even link it to being affected by an SSRI?
Literally says NOTHING about being permanent, this is about symptoms experienced while on SSRIs. Did you read your own source?
> When taking LSD you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of suffering a psychotic break
Where are you getting this number? It lacks so much context. What dosage gives you a 1/1000 chances of a psychotic break? Are you aware people are just taking whatever amount of Ketamine they feel like?
You seem to be arguing that Ketamine is somehow 300+ times safer than SSRIs as if you can compare the two 1:1. That is now how medication works.
> You said most symptoms were permanent, don't back down now. Sexual Dysfunction is a pretty broad term, how would you even link it to being affected by an SSRI?
Buddy, you're doing something called Source Bombing. I've read through 3 of these links and they directly contradict what you argued. I'm not going to waste my free time reading through the rest if you aren't going to bother reading at least one of them yourself.
With regards to Ketamine.
> There you go (for instance): "Cohen suggests a low rate of prolonged psychotic reactions in LSD users (1.8 per 1000) [19]"
That is a description of one of the many studies included in this meta-analysis. This is from the same article.
> Taken together, the effective risk of psychedelic-induced psychosis or worsening of pre-existing psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia -as well as in the early stages of the psychosis spectrum- remains incompletely understood
Also
> Overall quality of studies was low and only few studies (n = 9) could be included in the meta-analysis, hence the presented findings should be interpreted with caution.
> Buddy, you're doing something called Source Bombing.
You're doing something called "Moving the goalposts" by first asking for sources and then complaining because those sources don't support the very narrow construal you seem to be applying to my argument.
Those sources are scientific studies, which by the very nature of the scientific processes of course are open-ended.
However, the prevalence of side effects with psychedelics is in the single-digit range, whereas with SSRIs you're almost certain to be experiencing some sort of - often severe - side effects for the rest of your life.
> i generally consider myself an enemy of psychedelic advocates, because I think they want to make it effectively socially mandatory to do these drugs, which is really bad.
> ("sure, it's your choice what you put in your body, but a really enlightened person wouldn't be so frightened and closed-minded that they don't want to see what psychedelics can show them...")
I'm sorry WHAT? I've been to many open airs and other events where MOST of the people around have been under the effect of psychedelic and in other drug-friendly places, and I have never hear manipulative shit like that ever. On the contrary, if I heard people talk about this drugs it was always "it worked for me but might be a bad experience for you", "be safe, don't take it if you're not sure" and "you can always have a great time here completely sober".
i think that "we all want to get high on drugs" situations, like festivals, are actually a lot better. it's about personal choice.
when i talk about psychedelic advocates, i mean the people who think that widespread use of psychedelic drugs would massively improve mental health, make people more productive and happier, etc.
Confusing a minority of fringe members with the reasonable group of "psychedelic advocates" as a whole just delegitimizes the whole movement. There will always be some who take reasonable ideas to absurd extremes.
As a point of comparison: "social drinking advocates" vs. those who like to get blackout drunk every night.
The idea that everyone should be pressured into taking psychedelics is an absurd extreme. Psychedelics can be a powerful catalyst to growing as a person, but they're not a magic potion that makes you grow emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually.
They're likely going to bring your unprocessed ideas and personal issues to the forefront which can be very productive if you want to face them. But those who carry around demons that they've repressed and absolutely don't want to face would probably have a terrible time on psychedelics.
A friend of a friend took MDMA + Ketamine every weekend. K-hole doses. Developed monday-blues which turned into a sort of servere depression as he pressed on. It took a year of abstinence before he felt “normal” again.
Drugs that affect the serotonine system can do this. Burnout from (repeated) overload sort of situation IIUC.
I’m no doctor, but I suspect it’s extra dangerous if you’re already suffering depression.
I couldn’t read the whole note. What a tragedy :'(
Taking MDMA every weekend is like drinking a few glasses of hard liquor every day. Meaning, only completely delusional and uninformed people would think it won't destroy your life.
Of course, many people still do it. But they are fully aware of what road they're taking.
I took MDMA every weekend and it seriously fucked me up. I was depressed for easily a year afterwards.
I suspect even 15 years on I haven’t fully regained my ability to experience joy, but this is impossible to know for sure. I can’t run the counter factual and there are many other variables at play. I was a teenager when I got too deep into MDMA.
How do you find the right "medical professional"? I spoke to a psychiatric doctor about this recently, and he literally laughed in my face and said its all bogus.
Find providers who don’t seem too eager to give you as many treatments as possible. I’m getting ketamine infusions for pain through a pain specialist but he also treats depressed patients. A pain specialist may be able to help you as much as someone focused on psychiatry as they still know the drug well and often know how to treat depression
reply