Probably not intentionally but they have an incentive in not air-gapping those agents correctly, knowing something might happen.
Incentives drive everything. Both OpenAI and Anthropic love those incidents as they both signal they have models with amazing capabilities and they should be regulated by the government (read: regulation that they will lobby for and that will be difficult to achieve for open source models)
Border control can't stop you from entering the country. Please do not spread misinformation.
If you mean non-citizens? Well, I invite you to check out many other places all across the world who also pick and choose who they will allow to visit.
>> My dad actually arranged a visit with a psychiatrist who did an official IQ test (wooo! I'm a genius! yay!)
One must love the irony that those tests are mainly use as a way to pat yourself on the back (you and your dad) more than any possible actionable item out of it.
Funny how most people that take an IQ test come out as "geniuses"
The initial use was to ration advanced education (secondary or higher), so as not to lavish it on "morons" (at the time a technical term).
Similar in concept to the German Abitur, which originally tracked students into Gymnasium or vocational tracks. Today it comes at the end of a secondary education (high-school) programme, and is comparable to British A-levels.
Those standardized tests seem to mix grit and intelligence and are a way better predictor of success and "intelligence" than those IQ tests.
I have met a couple people that were boasting to me they were in the top 0.01% intelligence wise (as proven by the IQ test! Geniuses!). None of them were particularly successful or looked particularly outliers on intelligence based on what they achieved.
When the test is designed, they use a wide variety of people.
But the only people I ever hear taking an IQ tests are people that already know they are smart. Why? Because it probably feels good. Because why else? Is there any actionable item out of that test?
I'd imagine the only people taking it are on either end of the curve - smart people who want a gold sticker, and not-smart people that need a sufficiently low IQ score to qualify for a government program.
yup exactly my observations as well.
Either you are already smart and you know it and want to confirm to boost your ego (Because again? Nobody here was able to answer what are the action items out of this test). OP in this case is clearly very proud to be in that category.
Or you are so stupid someone else thinks its a good idea to have you tested to confirm you are challenged
They are usually taken when a child struggles in school. The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.
As an adult the actionable item may be to adjust your expectations of yourself. For example if I'm 90IQ and beating myself up about not being a 10x dev despite my efforts, or if I'm 150IQ and feel too unqualified for some intellectual endeavor, I could make adjustments after knowing the truth.
I took one as an adult and my impetus was that I am contrarian about a lot of things, i.e. there are a lot of things I believe that most people don't believe. I wanted to know if I was just a midwit being an idiot contrarian or if there's at least some reason to believe I might have a better idea about things than average people. In the end I scored very highly, so I can now feel more comfortable trusting my own judgement. If I had scored much lower, I would accept I'm probably wrong about a lot more things and stop having such strong opinions.
> The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.
And this is precisely why I took the test. The only 'official' IQ test I've taken in my life. Psychiatrist told my dad I didn't have enough grit to stick with things I found boring. Guilty as charged. Fortunately grit did eventually happen, about 5 years later.
OP said he was successful without ever studying. That directly shows higher IQ, low Grit. Not sure what extra information the IQ test added except the vanity and ego boost it gives someone.
>> Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible
Uh? I feel it's the opposite. Society constantly judges people that don't have kids. Having kids has always been the norm. It projects you as a grown up mature adult. In fact I think a ton of people have kids simply because they want to give that image of being a well established mature person.
This is a fallacy. You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it.
Especially if we try to rationalize the choice. If you talk about "feelings", then fine. But be aware that "feelings" could simply be your hormone levels changing after having kids.
You don’t need to be a parent to be allowed to comment on or speculate about being a parent, but this is definitely one of those things you can’t guess at or estimate.
Until it is your kid in front of you you can’t know what you’ll feel as a parent. Maybe it’s all hormones and monkey brain, but that doesn’t make it any different.
Many people do not have that Hollywood Magic moment where “everything changed.” Some of my friends experienced this, some of them did not. None of us experienced what we thought we would.
Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
We are talking past each other because some/most parents in those discussion cannot get out of their self-centered view of the worlds based on "feelings". But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world, you should be able to substantiate that claim without going back to "feelings" that only you can feel.
> Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
Yes, they should. We are, after all, replying to the initial assertion that (and I quote) "you don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings [love, being needed, needing someone]".
> But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world
That wasn't a claim anybody made in this thread, and specifically everyone was talking from a personal perspective about parenthood, not making universal claims. Certainly not the person who wrote this (and to whom you indirectly replied):
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
If you don't like talking about feelings, fine. But this discussion was about feelings, not about some universal "most important thing in the world".
Sure. But if you want a rationale discussion about what matters in life as this blog post and parent commenter suggest you probably don't want to get influenced by feelings.
There is a ton of philosophy written around this. Feelings are a very self-centric view of the world. The goal of rationalization is to take a wider systemic view without being self-centered.
Because if you push feelings and chemistry to the max you could also make an argument that taking meth and heroin is the most important thing in the world, as the feelings coming out of it are very real.
This discussion is many level deeps based on a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life. And other grand similar statements.
>>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
I don't think so. You specifically replied to a comment by calling it a "fallacy", when it was discussing feelings of parenthood. That's very specific and cannot be excused as arguing it was addressing the broader context of TFA. And the whole sub-thread was about feelings.
Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote:
> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life
The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours.
In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend:
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value.
Read again the comment that prompted the above comment:
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them.
edit:
> a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life
Is it really? How much of that is a "feeling" that evolution made you feel in order to protect your kid from issues?
having kids is the baseline normal for millions of years. As much as you "feel" that this is the most important thing you ever did, it is worth taking a step back and think rationally about this. Is it really? What about it makes it SO important? Because we for sure are not going extinct at all. Having a lot of kids has always been the default. If you don't have kids the world will be absolutely fine, in fact nothing will change at all.
So you should ask yourself. Why is it the most meaningful thing you ever did? Because it is YOUR DNA? Isn't that then a completely self-centered pursuit?
They should absolutely all be discussed. I just don't see a lot of rationale that supports that having kids is the "biggest accomplishment of a lifetime" though.
There is inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about it. It has always been the normal things that happen to most humans and animals since the dawns of time.
If you respond to this, please use rationale and not feelings to describe why having kids is the "biggest achievement from your lifetime".
Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
When I hear people say this with all the morale high ground that comes with it I’m always wondering if it’s partially because of some hormonal changes. It has been proven recently that the human brain changes after having kids.
I know you didn’t intend it that way but there are so many people that are extremely judgmental about having kids (or rather judging people that don’t have kids).
I also understand that it’s such a hard task that there must be some level of self convincing needed to make it work.
All that to say, i tend to dismiss those opinions.
I feel that physical change the moment I saw my son first time. Something snapped/connected in my brain. I will do anything for that little thing. The feeling is visceral. It is very hard not to preach your best experience to others
That added some intensity behind my motivation to avoid parenthood: so many people describe having their brains hijacked in this way that I could not be sure I would be immune. Best steer far clear, I thought.
I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate.
So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.
Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world.
Essentially discussing facts versus emotions.
Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.
I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways.
Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children.
In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings.
There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism:
And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children:
- Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold.
- By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics.
See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
>>> In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
No, again: those words have measurable meaning: Having children is neither special/unique (as it is literally the normal outcome for most people), neither difficult (at least to HAVE children is not difficult, raising them well has probably some level of measurable difficulty). How can you disagree with this logically?
> See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
No, they're not logical arguments, they're based on a whole suite of assumptions about value systems that I would argue reflects more about how you feel about the world than any sort of rational/objective assessment of what constitutes a "grand achievement".
> Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty.
Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident. Can you make an argument for this that isn't an appeal to emotion?
> By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids.
Same exact response from me. Why is a bigger legacy grander or more of an achievement? Can you make a logical argument in favour of a bigger legacy that's not an appeal to emotion?
I see no logic in your arguments, I see you restating your values as if they are logical.
> How can you disagree with this logically?
I don't disagree with what the words mean, I'm saying that you think special/unique/difficult = grand accomplishment for feelings-based reasons, not logical reasons.
This is going to be my last reply because we are talking past each other.
I think it is perfectly fine and logical for you to reply to my logical arguments with other counter-logical arguments such as:
>> Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident
You could say to you a "grand achievement" is keeping your bloodline as this is what evolution wants us to be. That has some logic. I actually would agree with some of those arguments, and we could go back and forth. Sure, it represents some of our values but you are making at least some logical sense.
What I reject is reasoning such as: "Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life." and when asked clarifications around why that would be the cause, the replies are "feelings, and you will know when you have them".
I agree with this. People that go to the gym see any other sports as inefficient and entertainment to a comical level. They drive to/from the gym. It's almost comical
But yet, when I go out hiking or to the mountains with them they can barely keep up. They still think they are the fittest though.
The gym/lifting is mainly a vanity place, where it is all about feeling disciplined and looking good. But your body is way more functional doing real things.
reply