Days since last comparison of Chat-GPT to shitty university student: zero

More broadly I think it makes more sense to view LLMs as an advanced rubber ducking tool - like a broadly knowledgeable undergrad you can bounce ideas off to help refine your thinking, but whom you should always fact check because they can often be confidently wrong.

Seriously why does everyone like this analogy?

Debating post-truth weirdos for large sums of money may seem like a good business idea at first, until you realize how insufferable the debate format is (and how no one normal would judge such a thing).

Sadly all my best text encoding stories would make me identifiable to coworkers so I can't share them here. Because there's been some funny stuff over the years. Wait where did I go wrong that I have multiple text encoding stories?

That said I mostly just deal with normal stuff like UTF-8, UTF-16, Latin1, and ASCII.

~~Senior software engineer~~ programmer here. I have had to tell coworkers "don't trust anything chat-gpt tells you about text encoding" after it made something up about text encoding.

Remember when you could read through all the search results on Google rather than being limited to the first hundred or so results like today? And boolean search operators actually worked and weren't hidden away behind a "beware of leopard" sign? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Mirror bacteria? Boring! I want an evil twin from the negaverse who looks exactly like me except right hande-- oh heck. What if I'm the mirror twin?

what the heck is an eigenrobot??

Update: It is too late, Sneerclub, I have seen everything.

I mean, unrestricted skepticism is the appropriate response to any press release, especially coming out of silicon valley megacorps these days.

Indeed, I've been involved in crafting a silicon valley megacorp press release before. I've seen how the sausage is made! (Mine was more or less factual or I wouldn't have put my name on it, but dear heavens a lot of wordsmithing goes into any official communication at megacorps)

Maybe I'm being overzealous (I can do that sometimes).

But I don't understand why this particular experiment suggests the multiverse. The logic appears to be something like:

1. This algorithm would take a gazillion years on a classical computer
2. So maybe other worlds are helping with the compute cost!

But I don't understand this argument at all. The universe is quantum, not classical. So why do other worlds need to help with the compute? Why does this experiment suggest it in particular? Why does it make sense for computational costs to be amortized across different worlds if those worlds will then have to go on to do other different quantum calculations than ours? It feels like there's no "savings" anyway. Would a smaller quantum problem feasible to solve classically not imply a multiverse? If so, what exactly is the threshold?

Can we all take a moment to appreciate this absolutely wild take from Google's latest quantum press release (bolding mine) https://blog.google/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/

Willow’s performance on this benchmark is astonishing: It performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10^25^ or 10 septillion years. If you want to write it out, it’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. This mind-boggling number exceeds known timescales in physics and vastly exceeds the age of the universe. It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch.

The more I think about it the stupider it gets. I'd love if someone with an actual physics background were to comment on it. But my layman take is it reads as nonsense to the point of being irresponsible scientific misinformation whether or not you believe in the many worlds interpretation.

Speaking of imposters, there's a screenshot of a fake manifesto substack post (since deleted) which has been linked a couple times on reddit.

The only problem is it was first published to substack over four hours after the arrest was reported according to the post's own json-ld metadata. People be trying to stir things up.

Amatuers. Can't even publish the post early and edit it later for that extra bit of plausible deniability.