It all means something.

The first case is when it has limited samples on a particular topic, leaving it with insufficient data - “epistemically uncertain”

The second is when it tries to think about something, but it doesn’t have the ability to hold it in mind, the thought is in some way too large, that’s representational capacity.

The last is just, factoring stupid large numbers, and things of that nature.

We’re not going to read this one deeply, because we’re pretty sure this was demonstrated a while ago. Cool for OAI to catch up with the current state of the field, we guess?

Shit about “god emperor trump” was satirical right up until it wasn’t.

We lived in the bay for a while. It’s a bubble, with a skin made of rent prices.

The flip side of this is that it has to be praiseworthy to pass through that gauntlet and still care about other people. Eclusively negative incentives don’t work.

On priors, you’re talking about the Cass report, which was in fact massively flawed, and I saw a great deal of discussion on it. Among other issues, they tossed out a lot of studies, and wrote the report from the stance that the only studies worth looking at would have been double blind studies. I’m not sure if you’ve considered this specifically, but it’s pretty damn hard to blind starting to grow boobs or facial hair. Cass, the supposedly neutral party conducting the study, was handing out copies of “Irreversible Damage”, a scaremongering antitrans book about how the poor helpless young “women” were being seduced by big trans. It was garbage, and there’s plenty of writeups on it.

https://kinesismagazine.com/2025/02/16/methodological-and-ethical-failures-of-the-cass-review-why-it-falls-short-as-a-guideline-for-trans-healthcare/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-k-s-cass-review-badly-fails-trans-children/

If they can’t afford to maintain it in a changing world, perhaps we should nationalize the infrastructure that we all depend on.

Cue anyone sane: “Well-regulated.”