So they've taken causality, emergence and consciousness and combined them into one simple to measure number? And now they're making philosophical statements about the implications.

You know what, fine, be that way if you must.

Eh depends what you mean I suppose, but a small dense cluster with enormous outliers is not a great sign usually.

Almost nothing has (effectively) unbounded variance, so most things are under statistical control in a sense. With some notable exceptions (earthquakes, any other event with exponentially decreasing frequency and exponentially increasing damage).

For the sake of argument I assumed the author meant that the variance of the thermostat was too high to be practical.

Statistical control is a very specific term: https://entropicthoughts.com/statistical-process-control-a-p..., and one which you'd expect anyone with a significant interest in Deming to understand.

My expectation is that Lorin would read the parent comment and say some variant of "oh, whoops, I didn't check." As the parent noted, it's not really that important to the overall point.

None of those data points are outliers, since they are within the band of what's expected from the process.

Yes, the variability of the thermostat is awful, and the SPC practitioner would care about that. But the key thing is that dealing with bad variation that's in control requires different techniques than dealing with actual out-of-control processes.

Short cycling is bad, most residential systems will look like the second chart.

Especially older buildings where things like uneven sun loading have a bigger impact, and where things like outdoor reset are less common.

Honest signalling is still a thing. In fact it's rather common, it's one of the reasons most poisonous animals actually look poisonous.

> All the people responding saying "You would never ask a human a question like this"

That's also something people seem to miss in the Turing Test thought experiment. I mean sure just deceiving someone is a thing, but the simplest chat bot can achieve that. The real interesting implications start to happen when there's genuinely no way to tell a chatbot apart.

But it isn't just a brain-teaser. If the LLM is supposed to control say Google Maps, then Maps is the one asking "walk or drive" with the API. So I voice-ask the assistant to take me to the car wash, it should realize it shouldn't show me walking directions.

The short answer is that it's up to a judge to decide that, up to the law what it's based on and up to the people what the law is.

Sure there is still some leeway between only letting a judge decide the punishment and full on mob rule, but it's not a slippery slope fallacy when the slope is actually slippy.

It's fairly easy to abuse the leeway to discriminate to exclude political dissidents for instance.

Don't resign, just offer a remise after moving a pawn. Only resign if no pawns are left.

I'd claim it would work on human opponents, but I think it would get banned from chess tournaments.

Perhaps playing 1. e4 2. Bc4 3. Qh5 4. Qf7 (and resigning or offering a draw if some move isn't legal) would minmax this further

The problem isn't really well defined. Elo rating is assumed to be determinable independent of what opponents you face, so scoring 50% against opponents rated 1800 gives you the same information as scoring 26% against opponents rated 2000. In practice that's obviously not completely true, and for degenerate examples like the ones we are discussing it completely falls apart.

People thought negative numbers were weird until the 1800s or so, they arose in much the same way as a way to solve algebraic equations (or even just to balance the books, literally).

Complex numbers were always going to show up just so we could diagonalise matrices, which is an important part of solving (linear) differential equations.

Well no, in that case all traffic is exposed anyway.

I meant will people be able to find that the hostname exists.

Who's your DNS set to (on both ends)? They're probably selling logs.

Well websites like AirBnB tend to make it as difficult as humanly possible to automate stuff like this, so maybe?

Although that likely only lasts until they learn how to block LLMs effectively.

We may get to a point where they have a hard time distinguishing. Perhaps it can be made in their interest to open the API for everyone (i.e. convince the bean counters)

I'm never quite sure what to think of papers that have a conclusion and then build a mathematical model to support it.

Science starts with hypothesis and predictions.

Yes, but it's easy, and incorrect, to start with an answer and build your work backwards rather than proving your hypothesis with evidence.