I think they're just explicitly stating what the OP implied. And I think it's a worthwhile thing to point out: IQ isn't the be all and end all and just because you're "high IQ" that doesn't mean you've above persuasion or something.
True, but susceptible in different manners. As for a source which appears “trustworthy”, such as an LLM spewing out data, low IQ are more susceptible as per this study
And the original accusation that "only low IQ people" are influenced by the words that they read is not?
The remark is risible because it is an example of why it it false. Everyone is subject to influence by words, that's what words are for. Being "confidently incorrect" is also called being "mistaken", and everyone does it every day, including the commenter by the very act of saying it never happens.
It only takes a small modicum of thought to prove that the thesis is obviously completely false, yet it is stated with absolute sneering confidence and contempt.
By the commenter's logic, only someone with "low IQ" would believe their own words.
But your quote isn’t a quote from that post, you’ve made a straw man. What if what he says is true? What if less intelligent people are more inclined to believe those who seem intelligent, but without beging able to gauge their intelligence correctly? Or the same with authority figures, or simply agreeing with “what everyone knows”? All of these are heuristics we should expect when reasoning is difficult for a person.
These are also not the only ways that people can be misled about things, and susceptibility to them is likely not exclusively correlated to intelligence, but they might well be heuristics that LLMs can leverage effectively.
Also that correlation I mention likely can be quantified, but I doubt anyone is doing the research on it.
>What if less intelligent people are more inclined to believe those who seem intelligent,
I'm going to assume the actual truth behind this is complex, varied, and social.
When I was younger I had moved from a school that slightly above average to one that was below average in grades. The area had a really strong cult of ignorance feeling and I saw a lot of different behaviors in people that reflect themselves in political patterns. People that embrace ignorance seem much less likely to follow people that outwardly signal intelligence, quite often the opposite happens and they outright reject them. Instead of intelligence they are much more apt to believe those that broadcast success.
This quite often leads to power seeking individuals "playing dumb" and bolstering their success signal. "Awe shucks, that guy that got top scores at Harvard is just like me who didn't graduate high school" would be a good analogy to frame it.
You mean you don't independently know one way or the other?
So you are taking it on his authority?
Because it was stated with confidence?
According to him, you must be one of those low IQ people.
Does that help to see the irony here, and why the original claim is not only clearly wrong but inherently elitist and insulting towards its own intended audience?
The alternative, the world that all intelligent people must live in at all times accordinng to the comment, is epistemic solipsism, that everything is presumed false, everyone is lying or erroneous, because there is no guaranteed way a priori to separate true statements from false ones.
> I doubt anyone is doing the research on it.
Not only is there research on it, this is like Psych/Journalism/Philosophy/Law/Communication 101 stuff. There are textbooks on it written over a century ago. It is the topic that the field of "Social Psychology" was invented to study.
The dominant theory is the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which describes and predicts based on situations when a person is more likely to doubt a claimed statement of fact, taking into account past experience with the source, cultural norms, motivation, time, concentration/nondistraction, and domain knowledge.
There is also tons of research specifically on the impact of intelligence on susceptability to persuasion by authoritative tone, and the reality is the *opposite* of what was claimed: smarter people who enjoy deep thinking are more likely to believe falsehoods (Price & Stone, 2004), because they perceive the overconfidence as exciting new information to think about, just like you are doing now.
So congrats, by uncritically believing the guy who incorrectly said you were low IQ for believing him, you actually provided evidence that suggests you are high IQ, because science shows that gullibleness is a trait of high-IQ people.
You could also be right-wing authoritarian, that's the other thing that strongly predicts gullibleness but I'm gonna guess you're smart instead.
Not trying to combat you, trying to combat the other guy, who is being elitist and condescending and also incorrect in very ironic ways.
I'm guessing you didn't read what I wrote, or maybe I flubbed the communication in some ways because I was trying to be cooperative and complimentary towards you.
Edit: ok, you might object to me saying you're gullible, but the point I'm making is that that's not a bad thing and is actually evidence in favor of intelligence, the opposite of what the other guy was saying.
I'm gullible too. I'm also short, nearsighted, bad at communication, unable to bench over 90 lbs, and tend to spend way too much time researching fields irrelevant to my own work. Susceptibility to over-confidently incorrect messaging is a scientifically proven achilles heel of smart people. It's important for us to know that so that we can metacognitively account for it and hopefully avoid falling victim to it by way of scams, cults, and hallucinating AIs.
A young Thomas Carlyle was attending church with his mother. Upon returning home, after a lengthy sermon by the minister, Thomas turned to his mother and exclaimed, “If I were the minister, I would simply say: good people, you know what to do, now go and do it!”
His mother replied, “Aye Thomas, but would you tell them how?”
I think they are saying that it’s very easy to say “go do ‘X’ thing” for someone who already knows and experiences ‘X’. Not terribly helpful for people who don’t know how to do that.
It’s like telling a depressed person to just “not be depressed” and expect that to be helpful. Don’t you think if the depressed person had that lever they would pull it? They don’t know HOW to not be depressed. Ergo, stuck in the cave.
TFA is saying that what you think you may be doing is likely something else. Not publishing your work, not challenging yourself in the arena, etc. isn’t really about trying to make yourself good enough to succeed, it’s an avoidance of the bad feelings when you expect to fail.
So the message is rather simple, just go out and challenge yourself. Again, easy to do if you know how to mentally and emotionally handle the bad feelings. Seemingly insurmountable if you think the bad feelings will destroy you.
Ironically, the only way to know if they will or not is to actually dive in and experience the thing you’re afraid of failing at.
I used it too and it gets you from A to B but there is nothing that tells it if there is a road closure, traffic jam, other road issues that makes the drive longer etc etc.
No, because in maps category, people demand no inconveniences or compromises at all. Often the same people, who put up with Linux distros' shenanigans, curiously.
There was a noticeable degradation after the introduction of “liquid glass”. Of course I’m still on my 13 mini so I don’t think they really care about how changes impact the performance and battery life of my phone.
There is no amount of maintenance that can avoid all mechanical issues. Take bird strikes, for example.
Regarding "carry insurance": margins in the airline business are notoriously slim. They compete very heavily on cost, because the service they provide is a commodity (or close to it). Most airlines will probably not willingly add any extra costs that they don't have to, because that would put them at a disadvantage relative to their competitors.
For those passengers who are willing to pay extra to be reimbursed for delays or other inconveniences, there may be travel insurance that can provide that.
Because paying business customers are a lot more sensitive to this type of change rolling out. They are particular about how they want their shit hosted. Which is totally fair. People on the free tier probably a lot more interested in free benefits and care less about a little change in their hosting.
Cloudflare needs the data. Useful to validate the impact of changes, build marketing content... Using the free tier for this is fair, they let you opt out, they give you a dashboard.
If someone is mad, maybe they should pay or use a different architecture.
I don’t think anyone in these comments expects to get something for nothing, it’s that MITMing your payload is something that feels like a betrayal of trust unless you are crystal clear that you’re doing it. Considering how many people in these comments are surprised by this, it seems like Cloudflare hasn’t been crystal clear.
> this is fair, they let you opt out, they give you a dashboard
So they give you something else you didn't ask for and therefor it's "fair"? I think it's pretty dubious to extend services with such data collecting features without informing affected users first, and making it clear how to opt-out before its deployment. A blog post won't do, no.
> Makes me wonder if their stuff is GDPR-compliant without consent.
GDPR service providers and partners do not have to consent. Consent is for the users.
Services providers have to tell you when they collect your data, and they will most likely fail to do that if they don't even know their partner injects code.
*So you're liable if you host on cloudflare.*
Now, they somehow avoid this :
>when enabling Web Analytics, you can choose to drop requests from European and UK visitors if you so desire (listed here specifically), meaning we will not collect any RUM metrics from traffic that passes through our European and UK data centers. The version of Web Analytics that will be enabled by default excludes data from EU visitors (this can be changed in the dashboard if you want).
By default, it is only enabled for visitors from out of the EU, like so many services that respect your privacy and your concerns are their first priority
Even on free tiers there are Terms of Use you'll need to agree to as a user of their services. Like I said, it's dubious to alter a service and collect data without informing the user first, free tier or not.
There's a reason I got emails from LinkedIn regarding its new AI training purposes, and they made it clear how to opt-out and provided a deadline. I'm on a free tier there as well. So I'd question the legality of this even before any discussions about GDPR enter the picture.
> They are not collecting and using your personal data.
Do you see how GDPR doesn't apply, then? ...you're contradicting yourself.
I'd still question the legality of the data collection by altering the offered service without properly informing the affected users. Whether GDPR applies doesn't matter, and whether it's a free tier service doesn't matter either. You're a consumer of Cloudflare, so any consumer rights apply.
As a website owner, you are responsible towards your users for data collection (your architectural choices, your responsibility). This was my concern on GDPR.
Sibling comment says data collection is disabled in EU.
I never said "they would violate GDPR". I was questioning if it could be the case. Someone said it's not the case as the feature is turned off in EU. Reading their blog, it also looks like they don't collect much identifiable data.
When selecting free tier of such commercial MITM, opt-in RUM data collection is really far from the top ethical concern. I'm not saying it's a good thing and I'm not deploying their solutions to my websites.
IANAL but it looks like they saw a risk and decided to not put you, as a website owner using their free tier, at risk of breaching GDPR for RUM. That was my concern and it's addressed.
I'm not a Cloudflare customer and don't intend to actually use their services. To be transparent I got a free account for few experiments. I'm not working for them in any way.
When it's free you know you are being used, collecting data is the game.
I recently added a chisel and hand saw tool and started working on adding more complex joinery types. Right now any of the frontier models can easily handle half laps and pocket jig miters and the like. You can chat with the model and have it develop a procedure for any kind of joinery if you give it the right resources, if you do so I would love it if you ask the agent to nominate it as a community procedure.
I think part of the issue is that they didn’t explain what is gained by adding generics on methods. You’re right that a few examples here are useful.
Without generics:
‘’’
type Stream[T any] struct{ ... }
func (s Stream[T]) MapInt(f func(T) int) Stream[int] { ... }
func (s Stream[T]) MapString(f func(T) string) Stream[string] { ... }
‘’’
Then later you need to map floats:
‘’’
func (s Stream[T]) MapFloat64(f func(T) float64) Stream[float64] { ... }
‘’’
Then later someone outside the package wants to map a custom type. Too bad! They’ll need to make some custom wrapper that doesn’t follow the pattern.
With the genetics approach the semantics are defined once and usable in all scenarios. You don’t need to keep adding methods; instead the caller can provide the mapping function. Common mapping functions could be pre defined for convenience.
reply