this reminds me of a book "monsters and magical sticks, there's no such thing as hypnosis?".
Which to my memory seemed to suggest hypnosis, and the states of altered consciousness associated with it, as people being affected by good storytelling. (don't think this was explicitly stated as such, but it the biggest takeaway I recall)
I suspect the social persuasion take here can be interpreted in a similar way; We are telling a story in concert with the people around us, and in that exploration of a narrative we assume roles that affect our perception. Or at least our own telling of this perception, which in turn may have effect on our retelling of it (both in terms of the rationalization we're doing internally, and in how we anchor the memories of what happened)
Going by that also, the knock-on is that regardless of whether it was "real" we will live our lives after based on our recollection of it, and assume in a sense that it was "real". Meaning that the results are more or less equivalent of it being real.
And as a lot of people have mentioned in here, DFT is pretty much implicated in neural networks already because of the mathematics (especially in convolutional/correlational neural networks, which often make use of the convolution theorem (which is "just" fourier coefficient multiplication) to do the convolution)
Extending this post it seems more interesting to look more generally at the correspondence with wavelet-transforms.
Same difference back then.
(Iceland was basically expat Norwegians who held more on to the older beliefs while Norway got ravaged by christianity, and as a consequence of the priests going straight from dying rites to baptisms; the black plague.)
So... this isn’t news at all, but rather can be seen as supporting what our (norwegian here) own older tales and historians wrote down around the time:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla
It’s well known we went around, even likely as far as asia (buddha statuettes were found in viking graves) and one of our kings (Harald Hårråde) was commander of the Byzantine royal Guard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada)
So... far as I see there’s no one who knows Norse history that would find this the least surprising.
Not really sure what the fuzz in the comments is about either. (Oh, and 13’th warrior was "based on" a, most likely, true event, with a, most likely, embellished narrative due to the fantastical language used back then to regale.)
This reminded me;
People seem way too comfortable / in the dark when it comes to voice-cloning, which, with the added data of general speech-patterns, is likely to become a major issue wrt political/legal issues.
Conceptually, even though it currently is a market-strategy where the benefits are as you point out. In the longer term this could be argued as an uncomfortable seat of power to whoever sits on the user-data. (without bringing up too much of that issue here... might be time to generate obfuscation of voice similarly to the obfuscation of google-searching which I've seen on here earlier=)
Tragedy of the commons, and the laziness of a false sense of security railings.
Basically; I agree with you, and I think it is because of the way people act in a society that seems structured.
People seem to think that if there is a crowd of people, then they are part of the crowd. If a crowd sees someone in trouble, then the people are generally found to be more reluctant to step up and offer help, compared to when they are alone (plenty of research seems to show this.)
I suspect this is a sort of commons tragedy, where we assume that a crowd must hold structure with “people who take care of that sort of thing”, or that someone who feels qualified will somehow step up.
From my own experience it also seems like people tend to relegate any issues to whosoever looks like they have any kind of uniform. (Even employees at shops, etc.)
Were it not the case, we can speculate that people who are forced to bear their own actions would be more inclined to act out their own moral and ethical leanings... rather than the implied relation that illegal = bad, and legal/not-illegal= good (or acceptable).
In a sense then, anarchy is when all that is legal encompasses everything that falls under a sort of Kantian categorical principle. While everything illegal is the universally opposite. (Basically where the extrinsic laws of society match the intrinsic moral values of all citizens.)
Much used in simplifying kernel operations and convolutions (and some other nifty tricks.)
Another useful idea is also that in the domain of the fourier transformation we have exponentials (Fourier series are some series of $ c_n e^inx$), and when multiplying exponentials we get $ e^ix * e^iy = e^i(x + y) $
Moreover this is usually coupled with the case where we integrate on some periodic signal (so it’s integrated from 0 to 2pi, and unless the product of e^i(x+y) = e^0 = 1, then the integral becomes 0 as well. )
If we break AI apart and look at it; Artificial - human made. (As opposed to something emerging from nature)
Intelligence - ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, (oriented agency modulated by prior experience or observations)
Slightly tongue in cheeky; in most countries it seems corporations gained the right to vote before many minorities (or even majorities) [citation needed?]. If we assert that voting is the measure by which one affects political power
..and high performance athletic achievements are typically beyond the bellcurve of health over activity.
i.e. if you draw health as a function of activity/performance, it forms a bellcurve of some sort, and high performance athletes sacrifice their long-term health in order to perform at a higher level than most people are able to. (Marathons lead to ruined knees, heavy lifting lead to explosive increases in blood pressure, throwing arms come with wear and tear on elbows and shoulders, etc. )
So BCAA supplementation being another trade-off would not necessarily be a deterrent in that respect.
Something I found interesting when running analysis on Ising models; if you do an FFT (2 dimensional) on it, you get what amounts to a wavey star-like blob in the middle (assuming you center the lowest frequencies)
If that blob is a small dot, or even nothing at all; you have a stable system, and if you have a sprawling kind of wavey response-pattern, then your lattice is gone critical.
(Also it looks cool, and it’s quick to diagnose by a glance.)
After thinking about this for a while, there’s a pattern to games that might be useful to think about:
Games generally follow a pattern of:
- presenting a pattern to look for.
- presenting tools to solve that sort of pattern.
Then task you with implementing and reiterating that sort of solution.
This is close to how we teach STEM, but games tend to start breaking their own patterns (or the contextual clues for the patterns) in a smoother way. (E.g. portal where you’re gradually asked to think more and more (laterally) “with portals”)
So if we take a dichotomal view on education vs learning, we can say that games will encourage you to learn more effectively (in the context of the game, typically)
I suspect this can be helped with the concept of gameplay loops/cycles.
What games are good at is aiding the reinforcement cycle at the core of learning a skill.
(This cycle is also in any technical skill.)
Games are fun as long as they avoid this repetition and reiteration cycle feeling like a grind. Which is where Educational(tm) material quickly becomes stuck.
Grind is, in a sense, a qualifier of your experience. How the repetition feels to you.
If you’re “grinding” with a purpose, and it’s paced so your progress feels steady towards a self-elected goal, then it does not feel like grinding.
If it’s dry-repetitions, then you feel the grind. And that’s the trap of educational (I think)
(The ideas here are still mostly half-cooked, but hopefully it can add to the discussion)
Loved the Zachtronics games, but at a certain point they hit the issue with becoming 5+ h investments into a single problem, and cross the boundary to tediousness.
Only fully finished exapunks, which somehow didn’t scale as harshly wrt time investment.
After looking more into these a month or two back, it seems like they’re very hit or miss with people, and only manage a smaller impact in terms of people playing them.
Of course.
Yeah, what I was trying to illustrate is that with enough contextual knowledge the amount of things one has to memorize becomes comparatively smaller. Basically if one learns and remembers Euler's Identity and the expansion of e^x = (x^n)/(n!), then you don't really need to memorize the trigonometric expansions.
Reading over it I guess that may have been your initial point.
theoretically if you add the value-vector of all people together you end up with a long vector that represents the direction of society (even the opposing ones), and you can then normalize this to have the unit vector of society. i.e. what is the "direction of society".
Your skew wr.t. this one (inner product with, or projection on to this) will be some number between -1 and 1 (if we account for opposition I guess)
Basically if both vectors are of unit length, you get the cos(angle between). Completely off kilter would be a score of 0. While "opposed" would be -1
I was recently thinking about this, but on a slightly bigger scale.
There’s a term “off-kilter”, which is easy to explain using vectors like this.
If we take the general vector of society, just sum up all personal vectors and normalise, we form a big vector for society. This is what’s “normal”.
Kilter refers to the concept of how aligned we are with society’s vector. So the concept of being off-kilter is how skewed you are wrt this normal vector essentially.
Of course valid for any of the eigenvectors corresponding to subfields again, and this also goes some way to help form the overton window, which has recently been up here in some posts...
Which to my memory seemed to suggest hypnosis, and the states of altered consciousness associated with it, as people being affected by good storytelling. (don't think this was explicitly stated as such, but it the biggest takeaway I recall)
I suspect the social persuasion take here can be interpreted in a similar way; We are telling a story in concert with the people around us, and in that exploration of a narrative we assume roles that affect our perception. Or at least our own telling of this perception, which in turn may have effect on our retelling of it (both in terms of the rationalization we're doing internally, and in how we anchor the memories of what happened)
Going by that also, the knock-on is that regardless of whether it was "real" we will live our lives after based on our recollection of it, and assume in a sense that it was "real". Meaning that the results are more or less equivalent of it being real.