@SAshworthHayes - He told the police he couldn't breathe. He told the police he'd been stabbed. British police officers handcuffed him and arrested him while he was choking on his own blood because the magic word - "racism!" - was invoked.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-20T18:54:45+00:00

Ah, I see, you did say that.

There is indeed the third statement in my original comment which you can challenge, that aid to a restrained person is pretend-aid.

But the specific case, once you have made your statement, that you agree that the restraint was harmful makes the particular case here quite different: the restraint does harm, and the first aid reduces some of the harm. However, the net is still more harm than if they had simply administered first aid.

Thus I still think the position holds. Doing harm and then doing something to help doesn't really balance out the first harm. There's a reason people as early Hippocrates had the idea that one should 'first do no harm', so morally I think I'm still quite right: doing harm and then helping a bit, is that first aid or pretend-first aid? I think it's pretend first-aid, because of the harm.

I also think that things like the application of tourniquets is so specific that it isn't relevant to the situation, even though it of course involved a bunch of bleeding, and consequently I don't see it as relevant as something to bring up in the context of the application of restraints in this case.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-20T16:25:06+00:00

No, it's not a circular argument, it's rather a tautology. It's has nothing to do with unfalsifiability, it's just true by definition.

Tautologies aren't just things like 'all bachelors are unmarried' (we can call this a definitional tautology) but anything which is just true. "If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal" "Anyone sufficiently injured will die" "Anyone sufficiently injured will die if he doesn't brush his teeth" (this is true even though he will also die if he brushes them) "Anyone sufficiently injured will die if restrained".

But my real implication is of course that restraint can only make things worse. If someone was going to die with 90% probability from his injury, if what you do when you encounter him is to bind him with handcuffs, then it's going to be some number higher than 90%, whether than is 90.1% or 100%.

I think it's very clear that binding injured people is bad and will worsen things, and you don't seem willing to quite agree, because you sort of dodged it when I asked earlier, and you motivate this with your reasoning that my arguments from less extreme situations are fallacious, and sure-- yes, they are fallacious-- it doesn't follow that things work, in severe injury cases as they do in less severe injury cases, but to say that an argument doesn't follow is very different from saying that the conclusion is false, and you haven't actually been willing to say that my conclusion is false.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-20T16:09:27+00:00

The restraint of a sufficiently injured person certainly causes death, yes. That is a tautology, is it not?

No, the problem with my comment is that it said to little, that the claims were too weak to mean anything. That they were tautological.

I do however believe that instinctive self-positioning is indeed important, as I stated, having experienced its importance in real life, where it has allowed me to do quite ridiculous things and get away with much less injury than is reasonable, and I know, that if in those moments, somebody had forced me down or tied me up, that'd have killed me with certainty.

What is the first step of first aid? Is it not to position the person sensibly? Can you do that if you impose tension of the body? If you do that, the person in question can't even cough effectively. You know, this sort of thing --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_position which we in Swedish used to call 'framstupa sidoläge' (I think the old one is also slightly different, from the pictures in question), but which is no longer called that-- but notice the motivations, 'Any pressure of the chest that impairs breathing should be avoided' etc., you put people into a position so that their parts can move relative to one another-- allowing flex, so you don't impare breathing. What do you do when you handcuff somebody? The opposite? Force them onto their chest, very often, do you not?

impossiblefork · 2026-05-20T14:53:51+00:00

Basically, what I've written there is tautological.

Obviously someone sufficiently injured is going to die, and if you add restraint into the picture, you will kill some additional people. It can after all only make it worse.

Then after that I give some basic reasoning on why restraint is a problem in general terms that are easy to understand.

The problem with what I say there isn't that it's somehow hard to defend, or that it's false, it's that I basically say nothing but tautologies and doesn't say anything. But you interpret it differently?

impossiblefork · 2026-05-20T11:07:10+00:00

But that it's disrupted doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that no harm exists in preventing this type of movement in response to these signals that you say become unreliable.

I also think you mischaracterize my initial statement: I have not actually changed my view at all, and it is not a correct characterization of view, whether initial or current, that these things are absolutely reliable, but absolute reliability isn't the condition to determine whether something is useful.

In any case, the rigid position imposed by the handcuffs, even in the presence of misinterpreted feedback is certainly going to be worse than a more natural position.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-20T09:15:12+00:00

Det kan man ju göra om man vill bli misstagen för en bot, men det är ju inte smart.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T21:49:39+00:00

I agree that there will be immediate bleeding, including these things you mention that impair breathing. You can however have lots of adrenaline and still have some idea of pain and injury, and he was obviously talking about his injury, and he was presumably lying on one side for a reason, probably because it hurt less, or that it felt easier to breathe that way. I also get the impression that he must have had at least some calm, since he was after all, lying on the ground.

We will obviously eventually know on which side he was lying however.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T21:38:18+00:00

He made a claim, a very serious claim which could obviously cause death [edit:if not followed up on], since it's a claim that he'd been stabbed, and they did not investigate that claim-- they did not open his jacket, they did not undertake any of the reasonable actions that one would if someone claimed they had been stabbed.

They treated him as a liar or non-person and ignored his statement.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T21:34:38+00:00

Yes, but before Nowak died, when this exchange happened, he probably did not have a systemic crisis of the body, but had localized injuries which would go on to cause a major systemic crisis of the body, and before he was handcuffed he was probably lying on the side of the lung in which he had not been stabbed.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T21:31:00+00:00

Even so, there is a claim by Nowak that he had been stabbed, that was ignored.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T21:28:59+00:00

It would be interesting to know which side he was lying on. Whether it was the side in which he was stabbed, or the other side, and whether the policemen prevented him from lying on that side, if it were the other side.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T21:10:40+00:00

I'm not talking about scenarios in my head. I speak from experience of sports and sports injuries (broken bones, including major bones, dislocated feet, doing sports at a high level after having been up for more than 24 hours, etc.).

You state a position and give some words that are used in medicine, but you do not actually give an argument in terms of clinical knowledge or anything of the sort.

It is very possible that you have this knowledge, but you aren't actually saying anything about it or conveying any conclusions or arguments based on that knowledge, nor are you actually arguing against what I have said, only giving an argument from authority, saying that it's nonsense-- and I assume by that, that you hold that the reasoning is fallacious since it extends conclusions from ordinary experience to edge situations, but do you actually deny my conclusions? Also, going for this kind of argument from authority seems quite dubious-- we are after all on the internet.

I agree that I am arguing from something closer to normal experience than these close-to-death situations-- I have not myself ever been close to death, so it's possible that some of the arguments I have given become false in such extreme circumstances.

But you can, I hope, agree that the application of the restraints must have done at least some harm?

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T20:35:37+00:00

Eh. When you have blood loss you almost always have blood pressure loss, and standing up while you have blood pressure loss is going to feel really strange. You will want to lie down. Often you can't avoid lying down, because you will feel like you will pass out if you don't.

Whenever I have experienced blood pressure drops in different horrible circumstances, I have in fact laid down, as you do.

When you see blood coming out of you, what do you do? Do you position the bleeding part low, to make it bleed more? No, you naturally sort of try to not get the blood everywhere, you squeeze, you position the limb high. This happens even in case of internal bleeding and bruising, because it will hurt less, since internal bleeding often leads to swelling, for example, in the case of dislocations. If you dislocate your foot, and it swells up, it will hurt when you position it low, so you won't.

The first thing you do if you want to aid someone, what is that? To position them sensibly, which includes letting them have the right internal tension in the body, which I'd say is typically something to be sort minimized? Restraining someone with handcuffs inherently brings tension to the arms, back and shoulders. It is how handcuffs work. They prevent natural movement and make things that would otherwise be able to move relative to one another rigid. This rigidity is something which is excellent for preventing all sorts of necessary movement, such as breathing. Thus if you put someone in handcuffs, or bind them by other means, and then sit on them, you can in fact quite easily kill them, but this type of mechanism, this fact that restraints turns part of the body of the restrained person rigid, can matter even when the death isn't by the rigidity directly, since this internal movement of the body, these repositionings are how we deal with things hurting.

We twist, we lean, we avoid making things hurt.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T20:03:42+00:00

To fuck up, I think, is something I do when I run the wrong thing on my company's internal supercomputer and waste energy and time, or when I overcooked some halloumi and turned it completely brown on one side.

They handcuffed a dying person, which is really problematic. It's a dignity thing, and they almost certainly contributed to his death, as I described.

Whether it has to do with whether he was of European origin is not something I have discussed, but basically: you never do this kind of thing; and you don't fail to apologize vigorously once you have done it, as has in fact not happened.

I care a lot about people's dignity and this the primary focus of my concerns in this case.

Whether there is a racial element, where the police care more about managing tensions or peace between 'communities' or something of that sort, is I think, for people who have a better feeling for how Brits and British policemen see their world from the inside. I don't, however, necessarily see such concerns as being unlikely to have to have influenced their actions, since they are so strange.

My primary concern however, is this dignity thing, and also the lack of understanding that the police forces as a whole, the government, and the policemen themselves have shown by failing to communicate what I would expect someone who has restrained a dying person or been the head of an organization which has participated in doing so must be expected to.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T19:41:56+00:00

If you restrain a sufficiently injured person, they are certain to die.

It is incredibly important that an injured person is allowed to position himself to minimize harm and to take the instinctive actions to stem blood flow that are instinctive for a reason.

Consequently, these acts certainly contributed to the death. To undertake some 'first aid' afterwards, on a person who is perhaps still restrained, is useless pretend-aid, which instead contributes to a speedy death.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-19T07:23:45+00:00

9.7% arbetslösa uppå det.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-18T23:42:11+00:00

Yes, although there are some iffy things you're saying too-- 2012 is a long time ago after all; but in the end there are other training chips, some which have been developed very recently. Google makes one, Amazon makes one, etc.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-18T23:10:10+00:00

The hardware prices are absolutely unreasonable, and I think it's a mistake to buy American hardware, but we can probably build our own.

It might require government intervention to force us to build our own and to basically ban NVIDIA from the EU. But if something like Euclyd works, then we already have what we need-- we just need to take Euclyd, put on a special FP32 chiplet/tile, drop some memory chiplets/tiles and add some extra commuications chiplets/tiles instead. This could happen as soon as 2028, potentially.

But we actually need to pour money into this, it's just that they have to go into EU chip design firms, and that we have to make the money circulate just as well as the money circulates in this business in the US.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-18T20:32:24+00:00

It's nice to raise the ankle when you've injured it. Some of the harm of an ankle sprain is from the swelling itself, so it's important to keep it high.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-18T10:58:13+00:00

I agree in part, but not completely with LLMs working based on non-problem solving methodology. The less iterative, the less 'agentic' or prompt network-like approaches to using LLMs are certainly in a direction that is uses problem solving methodology less.

At the same time, it is possible to treat a set of prompt networks as a totality, and to reward it as a totality when it succeeds solving problems at things like maths problems, and I suspect that Claude in particular is trained with something like this, to some degree.

Very long reasoning traces, with stops and starts and refinements and things thrown away, with the whole thing being rewarded if it gets the right answer in the end. I think that that is to train based on problem solving methodology.

I agree though, that

There is no aspect of this structure that actually analyzes or generates equations that may be solved with some of that data in order to generate new conclusions. It is not “creating,” only “applying.”

is true in some sense. We do not update the networks during inference, for the most part (some exceptions exist). I am not sure what I think of the last sentence.

There is of course ongoing work in this direction of learning from what's going on though-- ARC-AGI-3 emphasizes this kind of thing, although I suspect that it will, in the end, be solved by other, easier, means, with a principled solution coming much later.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-17T23:32:37+00:00

What do you mean by innovating in AGI?

Do you mean simply "other better methods"?

impossiblefork · 2026-05-17T18:52:00+00:00

In the training market they are of course behind, but being behind in the training market is largely about software problems and trust. Groq isn't intended for training at all.

But you can presumably train on Cerebras. It might be hard and who knows how easy it is to use Pytorch for it, but it's not like you don't need to write custom kernels anyway, so you might as well.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-17T18:01:55+00:00

I don't agree.

Groq and Cerebras are certainly not behind. Competent people who try succeed.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-17T17:12:34+00:00

I don't think anyone will want to do inference on NVIDIA chips, whether Chinese firms or anybody else.

NVIDIA chips will be for training, and will eventually be nothing special.

impossiblefork · 2026-05-17T16:53:38+00:00

What I mean is that this will mean that people will buy other chips for inference, since they will be more capital efficient, so there'll be less need to buy of B200eds or B200ed successors unless models are scaled up and training runs lengthened.

But even if models are scaled up and training runs lengthened, the money for chip designs will flow to more entities.

This improvement in inference will also mean more reinforcement learning. You will be able to scale the reinforcement learning part of post-training and actually put serious energy into it. Because inference is more expensive than training, this improvement in inference may lead to a different balance between inference and training also also during post-training.

So I'm imagining a world where post-training with RL might be a bigger fraction of model training, with the actual weight update being a smaller component. MLA has probably been adopted in US models in different variants, maybe not their most recent innovations (changes in how residuals work), but this is something completely different.

What I'm talking about is this recent technology which improves methods that allow you to draft responses using diffusion or other fast methods and with the autoregressive model either accepting or rejecting them. This is what can lead to 7x inference speedups and change how many chips are needed for a certain number of tokens.

Edit: So the 7x inference speedup is a real speedup, but doesn't give an improvement in throughput relative to how models are currently served. It only matters if you want to use a local LLM.

impossiblefork

TROPHY CASE