Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."
I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.
They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.
I'm curious about this.
Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."
If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.
https://t.co/07v275i2gt
While she said some things I agree with, I rolled by eyes at her use of the word "trauma" because it seemed to me a transparent way to show political support to folks who's trauma narratives are important to...
I guess there's a general thing here: the more you can claim to have been harmed, the more likely people are to rally to support you.
I was once in a social dynamic where I would construct things such that I was visibly sad or put upon, because that was the only way I knew to revive (a type of) affection.
They need it, and they need it to be believed, because that's the only way they can feel loved and supported.
(Though that begs the question of WHY people have that need.)
The establishment certifies that this problem is HARD, you're not expected to just be able to trivially solve it. Which gives one protection against others' claims (or even demands) that you can and should.
Do you have a story for what's going on?
More from Eli Tyre
I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.
Anyone want to hash this out with
In general, I am super up for short (1 to 10 hour) adversarial collaborations.
— Eli Tyre (@EpistemicHope) December 23, 2020
If you think I'm wrong about something, and want to dig into the topic with me to find out what's up / prove me wrong, DM me.
For instance, while I heartily agree with lots of what is said in this video, I don't think that the conclusion about how to prevent (the bad kind of) human extinction, with regard to AGI, follows.
There are a number of reasons to think that AGI will be more dangerous than most people are, despite both people and AGIs being qualitatively the same sort of thing (explanatory knowledge-creating entities).
And, I maintain, that because of practical/quantitative (not fundamental/qualitative) differences, the development of AGI / TAI is very likely to destroy the world, by default.
(I'm not clear on exactly how much disagreement there is. In the video above, Deutsch says "Building an AGI with perverse emotions that lead it to immoral actions would be a crime."
I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with
CritRats!
— Eli Tyre (@EpistemicHope) December 26, 2020
I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.
Anyone want to hash this out with me?https://t.co/Sdm4SSfQZv
So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.
(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)
But in addition to that, there has been a much more sprawling conversation happening on twitter, involving a much larger number of people.
Having talked to a number of people, I then offered a paraphrase of the basic counter that I was hearing from people of the Crit Rat persuasion.
ELI'S PARAPHRASE OF THE CRIT RAT STORY ABOUT AGI AND AI RISK
— Eli Tyre (@EpistemicHope) January 5, 2021
There are two things that you might call "AI".
The first is non-general AI, which is a program that follows some pre-set algorithm to solve a pre-set problem. This includes modern ML.
More from Health
Back in January, a news story was published about Kerrianne’s study showing improved social interaction outcomes for autistic adults when paired with another autistic partner.
A detailed thread about the study and a link to the paper can be found here (feel free to DM me your email address if you’d like a copy of the full paper for this study or any of our studies):
In our new paper out today, autistic adults held a \u201cget to know you\u201d conversation with an unfamiliar autistic or typically-developing (TD) person. We were curious: would social interaction outcomes differ when their partner was also autistic? THREAD https://t.co/4koqUKV9G1
— Noah Sasson (@Noahsasson) December 11, 2019
Another paper published early in 2020 (it appeared a few months earlier online) showed that traditional standalone tasks of social cognition are less predictive of functional and social skills among autistic adults than commonly assumed in autism research.
How well does social cognition predict functional and social skills in autism? Our new paper attempts to answer this question. This thread summarizes why we conducted the study, what we found, and why I think it\u2019s important. https://t.co/KB1nIpK0M2
— Noah Sasson (@Noahsasson) August 16, 2019
Next, @kmdebrabander led and published an innovative study about how well autistic and non-autistic adults can predict their own cognitive and social cognitive performance.
New by @kmdebrabander and our lab: Autistic adults don\u2019t differ from non-autistic adults in the accuracy of their self-assessment on general cognitive tasks but are less accurate on social cognitive tasks. This however was unrelated to social functioning https://t.co/0MrqMKKO0r
— Noah Sasson (@Noahsasson) September 20, 2020
1/13
A thread based on Figure 1
A mature adult cardiac myocyte is packed with sarcomeres, whose contractile forces are coupled to the extracellular environment. With sarcomeres so close to the plasma membrane, how can we study the nature of this coupling?
2/13
Short answer: find a model system where the sarcomeres are not so close to what the cardiac myocyte is attached to. Enter, iPS cell-derived cardiac myocytes. These are “immature” in culture as they resemble fetal or neonatal cardiac myocytes.
3/13
Our previous work on iPS cardiac myocytes reported that sarcomere containing myofibrils assembled on the top surface of the myocyte.
https://t.co/xIBCu3hG1W
4/13
The sarcomeres seemed to be connected to focal adhesions on the bottom of the cell by thin actin bundles that resembled the dorsal stress fibers (DSF) commonly found in non-muscle cells. This movie steps through a Z stack of a myocyte starting at the bottom of the cell.
5/13