![]() I retract my claim to have won and will continue to see how AI progress advances over the next three years.ĥ0: (8/29/22) In Blindness As A Shift In The Schizophrenia-To-Autism Spectrum, I speculate on why no congenitally blind people develop schizophrenia. Edwin Chen surveyed a lot more people and found that on average they did not think enough of the images matched the prompts for me to have won the bet. The original post also exaggerated the degree to which some holidays “neutralized” or replaced other holidays, especially Christmas - again, see here for more.ĥ1: (10/8/22) In I Won My Three Year AI Progress Bet In Three Months, I said that I’d won a bet on AI progress based on (my interpretation of) whether some images matched some prompts. Some other bad things Columbus did seem on firmer ground see here for more. Commenters convinced me that the story was false-ish: Columbus was known to punish Indians who didn’t give him enough gold, hand-cutting-off was a punishment commonly used elsewhere in Spanish America for this situation, but there is no hard evidence Columbus used it. I described the study incorrectly (and very unfairly negatively) and incorrectly dismissed its results as useless.ĥ2: (10/10/22) In A Columbian Exchange, I related as true a story about Columbus cutting off the hands of Indians who didn’t give him enough gold as a tribute. ![]() In fact, it reported its primary endpoint just fine, the endpoint was significant, and the deviation from preregistration was reasonable and not a major factor in the study. I won’t go through all of them here, but one especially serious one: I said an ivermectin study (Biber et al) had failed to report its primary endpoint, listed irrelevant endpoints to make up for that, deviated from its preregistration, and would have had null results if the preregistration had been followed. Some of his claimed mistakes I think he is wrong about and I continue to defend my previous position others are already listed here. This wasn’t exactly a mistake, since it’s not wrong to give 60-40 odds on a false thing, but it seems worth acknowledging here.ĥ3: (2/1/23) In Response To Alexandros Contra Me On Ivermectin, I went over Alexandros Marinos’ very comprehensive criticism of my ivermectin post, attempting to show it made many mistakes. More recent studies have found fluvoxamine does not treat COVID. 54: (2/1/23) In The FDA Has Punted Decisions About Luvox Prescription To The Deepest Recesses Of The Human Soul, I said there was a 60-40 chance fluvoxamine treated COVID, and that based on this it was positive expected value and doctors should use it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |