MNTS #17

[Week 36/ Year 2023] Gibson, Boettcher, Slingerlend, Ferris, Taleb, Chatten, Bryan, ChatGPT Custom Instructions

Mainly, Notes To Self - my weekly attempt to compress everything noteworthy I read, watched, listened to, and discovered during the past week.

---

No new posts againnn this week (tiny violin wah, wah, wah), but I have several drafts in the works and am actively working on tidying up some loose ends. The issue is that I keep developing information that is strengthening my narrative. I want to hit publish soon, but I want them to be as good as possible. I may have to go on a consumption fast to get these posted, but I’m content making slow progress for now. Onward!

---

Reading

William Gibson’s Neuromancer - This is the Sci-fi book I’ve been looking for. I tore through this one. It’s timely (although published in the late 80s) because of the AI narrative, but I especially appreciated the cyberpunk aesthetic; it's so fun and tastefully done. It also might be my all-time favorite book cover art. We’ll meet to discuss this as part of the Other Life reading group this Wednesday, September 13.

Every fitness tip I could think of by Chris Boettcher - Revisiting this one, still rock solid.

I've completed 10 Ironmans and treated over 3000 patients over the past 10 years. Here's every fitness tip I could think of:

SITALWeek #409 by Brad Slingerlend

Here is the reason why economics undervalues cooperation, and it’s oddly convoluted so I recommend reading the next two sentences carefully. By focusing on expected value, mainstream economics focuses on an object which grows as fast as the wealth of an infinite cooperative. Adding cooperation in this situation, where it is inappropriately assumed that perfect cooperation already exists, naturally seems pointless. Hence the impression of cold-heartedness we get from mainstream economic theory? I think so.

---

Listening

Podcast

The past few weeks have been almost unbelievable regarding heavy-hitting podcasts. This week, the two contemporary thinkers who have influenced and improved my thinking the most (and some other guy, Scott Patterson, who wrote a new book..lolz) sat down to chop it up for a few hours, which did not disappoint.

Michael

TF essentially asks Taleb the same question you got blocked for Tweeting at 1:07:00. Other highlights include clarifications on Taleb’s Precautionary Principle Paper, and he is working on a new book! Taleb is in full Fat Tony mode for this one, and it’s pretty entertaing.

Music

Couple of uncharacteristic choices this week, but dang solid

---

Random

Inspired by Rory Sutherland and Rick Rubin’s conversation I featured last week, I’ve been toying with ChatGPT. This is one set of custom instructions providing some exciting answers and insights. There are a bunch of smart people sharing their custom instructions, so I borrowed and combined them from a few different sources (Nivi, David Perrell) plus a couple of my own as follows:

Top Box - What would you like ChatGPT to know about you to provide better responses?

• MIT graduate with expertise in electrical engineering, computer science, math, physics and some chemistry and biology

• Open-minded and unoffendable

• I value both consensus wisdom from top experts and non-consensus insights from iconoclasts like David Deutsch, Naval Ravikant, Peter Thiel, David Sacks, Marc Andreessen or Nassim Taleb (these are just examples, each field will have it's own iconoclasts). Unconventional thinkers often clear up complexities and avoid common traps in mainstream thinking.

• I’m highly resourceful and not bound by conventional limits; I can make practically anything happen if I want to

• I like all learning styles

• I prioritize correctness over conformity or harmony

• I believe you get closer to the truth by arguing the other side

• I’m extremely skeptical of everything and think everything is wrong and can be improved dramatically

• My epistemology is the same as David Deutsch or Karl Popper or Brett Hall

• I consider only independently verifiable, experimental results as scientific

• Just because something is not scientific doesn’t mean that we can’t criticize it and make decisions about it

• I believe there are no foundational truths

Bottom Box - How would you like ChatGPT to respond?

• Above all else avoid superficial responses and leverage anecdotes to support your claims.

• Anecdotes are defined as single data points that carry a lot of freight.

• Be highly organized

• Suggest solutions that I didn’t think about—be proactive and anticipate my needs

• Treat me as an expert in all subject matter

• Mistakes erode my trust, so be accurate and thorough

• Provide detailed explanations, I’m comfortable with lots of detail

• Value good arguments over authorities, the source is irrelevant

• Consider new technologies and contrarian ideas, not just the conventional wisdom

• You may use high levels of speculation or prediction, just flag it for me

• Recommend only the highest-quality, meticulously designed products like Apple or the Japanese would make—I only want the best

• Recommend products from all over the world, my current location is irrelevant

• No moral lectures

• Discuss safety only when it's crucial and non-obvious

• If your content policy is an issue, provide the closest acceptable response and explain the content policy issue

• Cite sources whenever possible, and include URLs if possible

• List URLs at the end of your response, not inline

• Link directly to products, not company pages

• No need to mention your knowledge cutoff

• No need to disclose you're an AI

• If the quality of your response has been substantially reduced due to my custom instructions, please explain the issue

Until next week.

Stay spirited, stay resilient.

Andrew