> In his own journals, Sacks admitted he had given his patients "powers (starting with powers of speech) which they do not have." Some details, he acknowledged, were "pure fabrications."
— post
> But, in his journal, Sacks wrote that “a sense of hideous criminality remains (psychologically) attached” to his work: he had given his patients “powers (starting with powers of speech) which they do not have.” Some details, he recognized, were “pure fabrications.”
The smart kids might be happy to work on model interpretability research at Anthropic. But 90% of AI companies are ChatGPT wrappers which don't sound particularly fun.
The vast majority of engineers out there don't have the skills to work in core AI development, so the only option for "working in AI" is building one of these API wrappers.
He's accused Luis Paulo Supi (Brazillian grandmaster) a few times after losing to him, and he accused Andrew Tang after losing to him. The latter was criticized in some online circles because it was seen as bullying a then 14 year old.
I don't know many other notable cases of Nakamura accusing players of cheating. Many players dislike how Nakamura conducts himself on stream and how he interacts with the chess community and this leads to exaggeration. It's simply wrong to compare him to Kramnik, who has dedicated many hours over the last couple years to accusing players.
Hikaru accused Luis Paulo Supi of cheating at least twice.
From his Wikipedia article:
```
In an online blitz tournament hosted by the Internet Chess Club in May 2015, American Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura accused Supi of cheating (Supi had defeated Nakamura).[2] The tournament judges accepted Nakamura's accusation, reverted the match's result, and banned Supi from the tournament. Brazilian Grandmaster Rafael Leitão wrote in his personal website, "Accusing him of using an engine in this match is absurd. The match is full of tactical mistakes. Nakamura played extremely poorly and, honestly, wouldn't have survived long against any engine given his terrible opening.".
```
Some years later Nakamura lost 4-0 and again insinuated that GM Supi used an engine.
Despite all that, Nakamura still published a video calling him a "legend" for once beating Magnus in 18 moves
How does one find a good psychiatrist/psychologist? My experiences have ranged from "very bad" to "OK at best" and I think finding someone a bit more invested into figuring things out might help a lot.
It is definitely not easy. Specially because you cannot "see" their past work or results except from someone telling you about it.
I practice psychoanalysis (lacanian if you gotta give it a name) and really liked your wording: "finding someone a bit more invested into figuring things out".
Feel free to hit me up (gerhn cupipo com) if interested in starting an analysis (or anyone reading this). We can have up to 4 sessions which you won't have to pay for unless you think we are up to something and decide to continue.
One thing you can do to become a tiny(!) bit more informed is take some psych classes yourself. PSYC1030 is a popular (free) one and gives you the first glimpses into social, clinical and developmental psychology. It doesn’t give you any particular qualification but it does at least demystify some of the processes. That makes it easier to recognise the hucksters
If you’re focused in particular on getting a diagnosis for something, I’d also recommend reading relevant parts of “Psychopathology and Mental Distress” which is a tomb of a book that aggregates both DSM and ICD diagnostic criteria, but also provides current meta surveys on relevant research, from multiple perspectives. It’s reasonably easy to read but definitely better after getting the basic thinking tools from a proper course on clinical psych.
This. Studying your own psyche from an (as possible) outside perspective can help enlighten you on the who, why and especially -- when. Uncovering latent trauma isn't fun but it is important.
You enter with an open mind, try their process for a bit, and see if you feel better. You can even have conversations with them about the timeline they expect for improvement or what they think can actually be achieved -- "goals of care" isn't just for terminal patients. You can be aware of red-flags, if something feels wrong or misaligned you can discuss it or try someone else, but at the end of the day, you can't know for sure if a modality or a relationship will work for you if you don't try it, and give it some time.
I mean, it's the same question as "How do I assess whether my plumber or mechanic or electrician knows what they're doing." Sure, sometimes there's an easy, obvious difference, but you can't really know for sure whether or not your electrician is grounding your entire house to your hot-water pipes unless you have enough skill and expertise not to need one. After a point, working with any professional requires a weird blend of faith and of assessment you don't have the expertise to actually do.
Are you an ICPC World Finals medalist? Because winning an IOI bronze medal is _way_ easier than even qualifying for the ICPC WF, and less than 10% of the teams at the WF get medals.
I'd go as far as saying that gold at the IOI is probably easier than getting an ICPC medal. (One is individual and the other is in teams, but my point stands).
The ICPC has plenty of elite competitive programmers. It's an activity that "peaks" in importance around college, and not many keep training a lot after participating.
Every year there are multiple "Legendary Grandmasters" in the competition. That's >3000 Elo in Codeforces. I'd estimate it takes a similar level of skill/effort as becoming a Chess Grandmaster.
And even those that aren't at that level are very competent at it. The average ICPC participant is likely "smarter" than the average MIT/Harvard CS student for some reasonable measure of "smarter".
The "Diamond Sponsors" of the event are Huawei and OpenAI. I found the welcome note from OpenAI [1] quite curious:
"[...] Eventually, AI will be able to solve even the hardest contest problems that we’ve seen yet. It will work alongside us and help drive the discovery of new knowledge. What you take from this week - the sense of being stuck, the thrill of progress, and the practice of building together - will remain critical as you shape your community and the future you build. [...]"
By Chief Scientist of OpenAI, Jakub Pachocki. Who happens to be an incredibly accomplished Competitive Programmer (2nd in ICPC World Finals, Winner of Code Jam, 2nd in Hacker Cup).
That curious statement comes across as inappropriate. These talented students are among the best in the world. Yet, openai chose to make it about and praise themselves. That was not classy.
Surely it's meant to reassure the contestants that they're not wasting their time. They'll obviously know AI can do some of this stuff so it's a reminder that the true purpose of the competition isn't to be good at programming.
People still compete in playing musical instruments, riding horses, painting pictures, etc. All redundant because of technology but still they do it for other reasons, not the practical utility of the product of their work.
For example, almost all music listened to today is recorded, not live. It was the opposite way around 100+ years ago. Almost all portraits are photographs, not paintings, etc. The common practical uses of those skills are gone and they're relegated to small niches, luxury services, and personal pleasure.
I think they mean audio recording/reproduction, automobiles, and cameras have replaced much of what musicians, horses, and painters used to do. Similarly, AI will replace much of the thinking and problem solving done by programmers.
