Okay, clearly you don’t understand. Let’s review.

If I flip 100 of my infinite coin, how accurate will my estimated mean be in comparison to my true mean?

Let’s assume we flip 50 heads, so we reasonably assume there is 50% chance to flip heads. Well, our 95% confidence interval (the usual one used) says that there is about a 9.8% range our true heads mean could be in. That means, 5% of the time, our actual heads flipping percent is outside that 40.2 - 59.8% range.

Now, here’s the biasing that we factor in: we’re gonna assume that our flipping chance is a standard deviation model, and that our actual mean will fall into this pattern. We assume, more or less, that people’s opinions fall into this model, too, and that isn’t relatively weird for polling data to assume, even if it isn’t completely representative of the true population.

If you flip, say, 1000 coins instead and got 50%, how much does that range shrink? I mean, it doesn’t shrink by a factor of 10, but by a factor of √10. This shrinks us by ~3.16, so the range becomes 46.9 - 53.1%. That is a lot smaller, but not, ya know, 10 times smaller.

The point is that having 5 times less participants would only widen the gap the true participants by about 2.2x… So instead of 2.7% interval, you would have like +/-1.25%. That’s, again, not going to shift the likely guess by much.

Because that’s just how random sampling works. You have a chance to be outside that confidence interval, but it’s just not very likely. Because increasing the confidence percent is ALSO a square root ratio. At 99% confidence, the range becomes 3.57%.

So, yes, surveying 1200 people, assuming random sampling, is pretty representative of the US. Your goal is to find the biases that shift the data away from representing the true mean, not to question how sampling works because math is not on your side. Sampling works, period.

And using weighted data for categories? Again, since all of the data was transformed in the same way, I don’t see the problem, unless you have a problem with transformations in general. This is a higher level concept in statistical analysis, but this is probably just averaging out 8 questions into a 0-100% scale, which isn’t particularly obscure or unique in sampling. If anything, this should shift the data closer to 50%, so any deviations away from 50% would be notable.

Simply put, your problem with the sampling method? Doesn’t exist.

Do you not know how statistics work? You can make a pretty good estimate of a population with a relatively small sample size. That’s why polls work.

Like, the only issue is finding out if your poll is biased or not. This is pretty bog standard statistical analysis.

But, as an example, imagine you had infinite coins. How many heads do you think you have to flip on randomly selected coins to make a relatively good guess on the chance of flipping heads? Because my guess is that you wouldn’t say infinite. You could probably get a good guess with 100. Flipping more coins just makes your guess more accurate, but it will be pretty close to the answer.

Basically, proportion of population is just going to affect the confidence interval, and that is basically within 2.7% points for the 43% say bad and 2.5% for the 71% who do not approve.

That’s… Accurate enough.

Probably because you wanted to be pedantic and unserious.

That is not as smart of a question as you want it to be. Unfortunately for you, not everything can be modeled mathematically, or if you wish to be extremely minute, not everything can be currently mathematically modeled efficiently and precisely because it would require knowledge or resources far eclipsing what we have available. If you just want to push up your glasses and ACKSHUALLY me, then it’s also possible to do anything, hurr hurr.

To even fucking PRETEND that we can model a brain right now is hilarious to me, but to equate that to LLMs is downright moronic. Human brains are not created, trained, or used in any way similar to LLMs, no matter what anyone says, but you are insinuating that they are somehow similar??? They are a simulation of a learning algorithm, trained through brute force tactics, and used for pattern completion. That’s just not how that works!

And yet, in spite of the petabytes of data they fucking jam into these pieces of shit, they still can’t even draw hands correctly. They still can’t figure out the seahorse emoji. They still don’t know why strawberry has two Rs! They continuously repeat only the things they hear, and need to have these errors fixed manually. They don’t know anything. And that’s why they aren’t intelligent. They are fed data points. They create estimations. But they do not understand what the connections between those points are. And no amount of pointing at humans will fix that.

Just as a brain is not a giant statistics problem, LLMs are not intelligent. LLMs are basically large math problems that take what you put into them and calculate the remainder. That isn’t an emergent behavior. That isn’t intelligence at all.

If I type into a calculator 20*10 and it gives me 400, is that a sign of intelligence that the calculator can do math? I never programmed it to know what 10 or 20 or 400 were, though I did make it know what multiplication is and what digits and numbers are, but those particular things it totally created on its own after that!!!

When you type a sentence into an LLM and it returns with an approximation of what a response sounds like, you should treat it the same way. People programmed these things to do the things that they are doing, so what behavior is fucking emergent?

Holy shit. This is the craziest article to write about one of the shittiest videos I have ever seen.

That video is glazing the fuck out of LLMs, and the creator knows jackshit about how AIs or even computers work. What a fucking moron.

So, like, the point of the experiment is that LLMs will generate outputs based on their inputs, and then those outputs are interpreted by an intermediary program to do things in games. And the video is trying to pretend that this is LITERALLY a new intelligent species emerging because you never told it to do anything other than its initial goal! Which… Isn’t impressive? LLMs generate outputs based on their datasets, like, that’s not in question. That isn’t intelligence, because it is just one giant mathematics problem.

This article is a giant pile of shit.

Agitators fired paintballs and were pepper spraying, according to some people that were in the area, and the cops did nothing about them.

You got a lot of people attacking you for saying this that are oddly defensive of billionaires and their “right” to purchase young women, sex, or anything else they want.

But Bill Gates did make a generous donation in Epstein’s name only a couple hours after this draft, so, you know, definitely not conclusive.

In a perfectly balanced, evenly powered world where everyone had adequate housing, food, and all the necessities of life, transactional sex is fine. Because no one’s life depends on it. There is no power imbalance, no coersion.

But we don’t live in that world. Billionaires can and often do make your life a living hell if they don’t get what they want from you. And people, generally, do not have all the necessities of life. 99+% of them require money to live. And these women are no exception. Heck, this doesn’t apply to even just billionaires or men. Sex workers NEED that money to live, so it is inherently exploitative.

That is the problem, like it or not. But billionaires only compound the issue multiple times over, because they can also apply power greater than others. And they can stop being a billionaire at any point.

Your business does not create money from nowhere. You buy things, and you sell things. You are part of a bigger economy, and you are striking that.

You close down for the day and don’t buy anything. It’s quite clearly spelled out: No work. No school. No shopping.

Any other questions?

Ain’t no fucking way you’re not a troll.

Why do we need to replace all the moderate Democrats that did EXACTLY what you said you wanted them to do?

Because they didn’t do what I wanted them to do. Obviously. Did you not read?

Do you have any actual PROOF that Schumer engineered the capitulation? Your personal opinions on the matter aren’t really what’s under discussion here. Just vague and unsubstantiated accusations, pretty Trumpian if you ask me.

Like, either he sucks at his job and needs to go or he coordinated this and needs to go.

Idk, man, it’s literally right there.

You should try harder?

Ain’t no fucking way Chuck Schumer isn’t responsible for this. That motherfucker has been doing shit like this for a while. But, let’s be fair and say, for some fucking reason, that Schumer had nothing to do with this. Then he has absolutely no control over his party, and he should go.

Like, either he sucks at his job and needs to go or he coordinated this and needs to go. And I no longer think he is bad at his job. Out of touch? Yes. A fucking dipshit? Yes. But bad at his job? No. I am not stupid enough to believe that for one second.

Which means we need to replace every Dem senator with progressives. Every senator should be followed everywhere by homeless people in their state. They should be seated next to starving families in restaurants. They should be forced to share medical treatments with the people whose healthcare they just sacrificed.

You haven’t given those solutions, you haven’t pushed for changes on the solutions given here.

Not a solution. Not a change to a proposed solution.

Do you understand yet why I find you to be a bystander?

Yes, but… Why aren’t they implemented? You can argue that the Dems fight you, but you’re wasting energy here fighting people that aren’t Dems. You haven’t given those solutions, you haven’t pushed for changes on the solutions given here. What’s the point?

You can make broad generalizations like that, and, generally, there is some truth to it. But that doesn’t defend YOUR actions. YOU are doing nothing to fix this. That is the point.

I get that other people are also not doing enough, that’s a legitimate criticism, but it is not a defense, and it is a deflection when people point out your actions and you point that out.

If you think no evil is better than less evil, I agree with that. But where is your no evil? You cannot make effective change by watching people die because your principles wouldn’t let you choose anything other than no evil, because… That isn’t a no evil choice?

I’m sorry you feel that way. You are still a sanctimonious bystander. You can pretend you did the right thing while you watch people die and feel superior about it. It is certainly a way to sleep at night.

Cool, you didn’t listen. You are the average ML. You should feel proud to add this to your list of accomplishments.

That is so fucking stupid.

A lesser evil can also lead to less evil incrementally as progress is made. What you’re arguing for is to say that people should take a lesser evil and then take EVEN LESS evil than that. Your insistence on perfection will kill people.

I get that you want to be sanctimonious, but saving one person now is better than saving two people tomorrow, because it has the potential to also save two people tomorrow.

Watch as I use your same logic against you: Your no evil strategy resulted in Trump, and those Palestinians are grateful that you exterminated them faster. Nice going!

See how stupid that is?