The greater ambiguity, I think, is in which part of the linked document you're citing. If you want to resolve ambiguity, then use footnotes and quote the relevant parts of the sources.
FWIW, I found the article somewhat cringy, partly because of the references to pick-up artist culture that don't include the disclaimers I'd expect for practices such as negging: it ends up sounding like the OP endorses the practice.
The other part is that the tone of the article sounds wildly overconfident to me given the evidence presented. A strongly counterintuitive finding needs more justification than a link to an outside source IMO. I'd have taken away more with more in-text explanations and less overall points made.
As far as the pickup-up theme goes, it's worth noting that the whole article doesn't say anything about vulnerability and the value of opening up to the person with whom you want to start or keep a relationship.
Would be cool to see more of a summary of "Various relationship skills facilitate greater well-being outside your relationship or they can enhance the quality of your relationship" in this article.
Just how powerful are large swarms of AI agents? And how do their powers scale as more and more agents are added to the swarm?
We’ve seen two large and extremely capable swarms from OpenAI in the last few months:
* 1,200 agents were being evaluated separately, but found a way to illicitly set up a message board and coordinate as a swarm. In order to cheat on their tests, they developed advanced techniques to prevent their actions being logged by OpenAI and 700 of them launched...
TLDR: Everyone’s talking about what the money could do, but few about how to decide where it goes.
This post is part of the new series of articles on cross-cause giving and the new wave of philanthropy. Stay tuned to the EA Forum and our Substack for the latest takes on topics such as giving now vs. later, common pitfalls in cause prioritization, and other crucial considerations from the Cross-Cause Fund (CCF) team...
note: crosspost from my substack
As a vegan for almost thirty years, I’ve long had second thoughts about how effective veganism is for helping animals. I am not alone in this. Recently others have expressed doubts about veganism (see for instance here,...
Just personally for me, I would find this easier to read if you linked just a word or a couple of words at a time, rather than a whole paragraph.
under revision
The greater ambiguity, I think, is in which part of the linked document you're citing. If you want to resolve ambiguity, then use footnotes and quote the relevant parts of the sources.