Ask me about:

  • Science (biology, computation, statistics)
  • Gaming (rhythm, rogue-like/lite, other generic 1-player games)
  • Autism & related (I have diagnosis)
  • Bad takes on philosophy
  • Bad takes on US political systems & more US stuff

I’m not knowledgeable about most other things

  • 123 Posts
  • 341 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 15th, 2024

help-circle

  • This is a really good question but far above Lemmy’s pay-grade man. Neuroscientists are very actively researching and doing debates on this topic (consciousness in AI)

    The main problem is that we don’t even have a consensus, fool-proof theory of consciousness… We can barely tell whether a lot of living creatures are conscious or not (think octopus with their distributed intelligence, plants with their chemical signaling, …), and if so, when in their development stage does consciousness arise. Machines are one step removed from even that; even if we give AI models the benefit of the doubt and say they can develop consciousness, how in the world are we supposed to measure it

    I found this highly-cited Nature Reviews Neuroscience paper (Seth, A.K., Bayne, T. Theories of consciousness. Nat Rev Neurosci 23, 439–452 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00587-4) (try Internet Archive if you can’t access it) that might be of interest… If you follow the citation trails, there are a ton of new articles on debating consciousness in AI. Like this arxiv article on consciousness in AI





  • My work account once got placed on a biotech mailing list so there’s that

    Outside of work accounts, I don’t think the algorithms think I exist lol. I use adblockers everywhere, and the only site with real ad-targeting I routinely use is YouTube… which I exclusively use on private windows while logged out, and with adblockers as well. Mayyybe YouTube/Google thinks there’s a weirdo Japanese weaboo (which is only half-correct) living around the vicinity of my house based on my IP address, but that’s pretty much it






  • Rhythm games, both in general and in terms of my main game. Don’t think I can recommend it to most people though

    Got into it… partly because osu was popular when I grew up, partly because I listened to a lot of “rhythm game music” growing up. This video game genre also always resonated with me quite well, I love extremely challenging video games so there’s that

    Reason I couldn’t recommend it… First of all it is not an easy hobby to get into outside of Asia, and because of this finding a community (even for really popular games like maimai/CHUNITHM) will be tough. Secondly because of the first reason, getting into rhythm games outside of Asia can get expensive, between arcade visits and homecabs and all. It’s also somewhat of an extremely all-encompassing hobby that leaves little room for one to do anything else. Finally there’s a pretty significant risk of injury especially at higher levels, I’ve had a bone fracture before and several ppl I know have had serious injuries, despite the fact that there’s little to no “payoff” (such as for-profit tournaments) like most sports

    On the plus side, stomping it out on DDR/ITG (the latter much more accessible) is a really fun way to do cardio!




  • Short answer is mostly no. Long answer is nuanced, and depends on whether you are asking about the score or intelligence

    Changing the “IQ score” (I am assuming a genuine test like WAIS-V, or at least something highly g-loaded like the old SAT):

    • You can practice for them. This is actually a bad thing: IQ test is meant as a diagnostic tool, so practice effects make IQ tests less valid. I know most neuropsychs will discourage you from practicing the exam or taking the same test within 2~5 years after taking one
    • Childhood IQ tests are somewhat less accurate than their adult counterparts, so sometimes two officially administered psych tests issued at two timepoints can differ by a lot
    • People usually score more accurately if they take the test in their native language, using norms from their country. Doesn’t affect most people, but some adult immigrants might benefit from this
    • Some people have wildly differing scores on different subsections, quite common among Autistic people I believe. This defeats the whole premise of IQ itself and you will likely never get a very accurate aggregate estimate… but that does mean your score will change based on which test you take. For example, if you are a genius at quantitative reasoning (math intuition) but below-average at say processing speed, you’ll score much higher on old SAT or AGCT (where math is 1/3, no processing speed section) versus WAIS-V (which has no math sections, but does have processing speed)

    Changing “intelligence” itself. This mostly never changes. However, if you have external factors that clog your mental, removing them do indeed improve intelligence:

    • The single best way is to have good early childhood nutrition. This obviously can’t be changed…
    • Have good nutrition and good sleep, and not take substances (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc…)
    • Resolve ongoing mental disorders. It is well-known that depression drops IQ by quite a bit, for example

    IQ has some white supremacist roots, so discussing about it is usually frowned upon… and even when used correctly, it is honestly much better used as a diagnostic tool. For example ADHD can get flagged on IQ tests very easily.

    Personally I think instead of trying to improve per-se, it is much better used as a tool for self-discovery especially if you have any weird neurological conditions. If you’re worried about accuracy or accidentally bombing an exam because you got too nervous with the psychologist, there are tests you can take at home such as old-SAT, CORE, CAIT, AGCT (the one US Army used to use)… which are all essentially IQ tests.


  • I got too excited about this topic and wrote too much. TL;DR: combination of in-state tuition, US/EU adopting different economics theories, and USC just being really expensive

    First of all, a lot of schools give discounts if you pay taxes. EU citizens benefit from reduced tuition at nearly all EU-universities. US also has a similar system called “in-state tuition”, but it only applies to people who study at public schools in the state where they live (a.k.a. pay taxes in). For example, UIUC (well-known for engineering, in Illinois) has an out-of-state tuition of $38,398-$46,498, but only $18,046-$23,426 for Illinois residents. Obviously this is still a lot, which leads to the main point:

    US and EU follow two very different takes on “who pays for college”. There is a major debate in economics (I think initiated by right-leaning economists) that reimbursing for university tuition is regressive, because you are paying for already well-off individuals (typically educated families send their kids to college) to further improve their earning potential. The counterargument is that university education improves the collective well-being of society and leads to positive externalities, so govts should still pay for university. This is also why nearly all countries provide free K9/K12 education, because no mainstream economists deny the positive externalities of early-life education

    But because of this ideological divergence… US universities opted for a strategy where governments mostly don’t reimburse college-level education. If the “customers” are footing the entire bill of course it would be more expensive. But it is technically a more progressive system, because underprivileged kids who defied the odds would get reimbursed by the government (such as Pell Grants) or by private foundations and can typically go to uni for almost no cost. EU in general opted for the other, more humanitarian approach, where everyone can afford to go to college, because the governments paid part of the bill.

    Personal opinion though, I don’t think the economics debate captured the full extent of what actually happened. For EU, yes the system is “more regressive” on paper, but you do end up getting more college-educated people which improves societal well-being. And the American system did indeed breed innovation! … but not necessarily in the “cheaper” direction. Some schools like Purdue University specialized into lowering tuition costs, a lot of others specialized into providing better “services” or “experiences” while massively jacking up their tuition costs because students can just do the student loan thing anyway

    Even within EU there are differences though: unless I misread it, KU Leuven (really good school in Belgium) tuition is only 1k € and under 10k € for non-EU citizens, which is half as expensive as TU Delft (Netherlands) (somewhere close to 20k € for non-EU I believe)

    And as a final note, USC is pretty expensive even by US standards. If I remember correctly, even LA folks kind of joke of it as the “rich-kids school”. A lot of the public University of California schools are much more affordable




  • Methinks this needs policy-level changes. There’s only so much we can do individually at this point

    Immediate terms: There’s nothing that can be done to curb the heatwave IMO, but there are ways to prevent danger. Namely, AC, cooling centers, public education on preventing heat-related injuries/deaths… Maybe govts can even temporarily reduce regulations/give subsidies on split-systems to help nudge some folks, but nothing much else can be done. One pet-idea I have is cooling centers, since I know Houston (which has extreme weathers) opens cooling/warming centers when the weather is too extreme; it is a very progressive implementation that benefits those who are underprivileged

    Slightly longer term: Trees/green spaces always help. Public transit systems always help. Some fairly sweeping changes in climate-related regulation (ease AC regulations, tighten car regulations, tax on pollution, etc), aimed at both reducing danger and improving the climate… or at least recuperate some “pollution tax” so the govt can use the money to plant more trees and build more trains. Also some European countries can do so much better at discouraging car use (or at least switch to EVs) given how good the train networks are; for countries without good train networks, build some

    Even longer term: Massive investments in green energy; if they are investing already, invest more. But be practical… temporary solutions like nuclear are not everyone’s cup of tea but they help with the transition. Do better on international collaboration. Find ways to discourage international trading partners from over-polluting (probably a combination of tariffs and negotiations… not my specialty).

    Obligatory not an economist/political scientist, there are probably better ways to implement these than what I suggested


  • I wonder if this has something to do with “whom you primarily identify with”? Seems to me that the primary identity comes first in naming systems

    Because there’s some interesting parallels. Even though the order is reversed, in CJ cultures (don’t know about K, presume similar) people overwhelmingly refer to each other via family names (which comes first) instead of given names. Where I grew up in China people almost never refer to your given name; most people refer to others with some honorifics + family name (brother Li, lil’ Liu, teacher Zhang, etc). In Japanese culture referring to each other via given names is reserved to close friends only. Also in these cultures the given names have a lot more diversity than in Western culture