It doesn't really matter if the model cannot make a good educated guess about calories in the food if it cannot give a consistent response given the same input.

Matt Levine: "Which honestly is a little bit cool? I mean, bad, whatever, correlated and predictable and manipulable. But also, like, everyone who runs the big frontier artificial intelligence labs is going around saying that in a few years they will build a superintelligence. What if one good use of superintelligence is deciding how to allocate capital throughout the economy? What if Claude becomes all-wise and all-knowing? What if we just delegated all economic decisions to Claude; what if it wisely decided what projects to fund and what businesses to pursue? How would that happen? How would “we,” collectively, delegate all our economic decisions to Claude? Maybe like this? Maybe all the retail investors will delegate their investing decisions to Claude."

Years ago I ordered Ninja 2 from Japan and was sadly expecting to pay another 20% or so in customs fees, but the price was given in yen, and the customs probably couldn’t figure it out, so they released it to me for free. It’s still going strong.

TokenExpiredError

Try refreshing or something, still works for me

If the author sees this: it's "whose old Apples", not "who's". Only mentioning this because it's very prominent on the landing page.

Also the feedback form doesn't work in Firefox, Chrome, and Edge.

A lot of areas in Western Europe are either completely deforested or have very weird low-density half-dead wooded areas, especially Germany. One has to go all the way to Poland/Serbia/Bulgaria to get a real forest experience again.

A good way to destroy real forests is moving a lot of people closer to them to have a forest experience near their house.

Surprisingly, this seems to be not true. Moscow, a city of 10+ million people, has huge forests inside or adjacent to the city limits. People leave rubbish here and there, but unless forests are rezoned and actively developed as "recreation zones" or some such, they are doing okay. One can easily find more species of birds in a large Moscow park than in the whole of Baden-Wuerttemberg. The trick is not depleting the ecosystem to begin with.

Some of this is being slowly reverted:

https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2de...

This is very nice, but unfortunately, it will take forever (in human-life terms) to bring "real" forests back.

(In my previous post, I forgot to mention stunning rainforests near Sintra in Portugal.)

How are they different? If you "know" something, you are 100% confident in it, which gives you an easy 0 for this question (or a surprising 1). Philosophically, the problem is more that there is no difference between confidently and modestly wrong in terms of consequences of binary decisions.

The Brier score is pathological when the guess is 0.5: regardless of the outcome, it will be equal to 0.25, so if you define "better than random" as having a score < 0.25, actually acting randomly makes you "overconfident".

So it's like HMM but the whole map is in battle mode?

It feels more like a war game to be honest. I played both for a while and they share some aesthetic, but not much beyond that.