swlabr

men will literally debate children’s tv instead of going to therapy

Holy shit fuck off back to reddit lmao.

It’s 2025, “My Immortal is bad” is a stale-ass take. Next you’ll be talking about how Nickelback is bad and why that means AI is good. Please at least be interesting

When you look at something made by a human, even if it doesn't seem to have any conscious intention behind it, it has multitudes of context encoded within. Think of the cerulean top scene from the devil wears prada.

Robocontent, generated from static, lacks all of that context. If I look at it and interpret it as meaningful, it is that act alone that gives it meaning, not anything done to create it in the first place.

When it comes to robocontent, I ironically react like a robot from westworld. I look at it, but it doesn't look like anything to me. It has no meaning. It's just noise, a page of static.

I suspect robocontent fetishists look at all art as static. They don't understand that there is intention behind art. They are fundamentally incompatible with human experience. They are disconnected and insensitive to the creative world, and that's just sad.

On one hand: all of this stuff entering greater public awareness is vindicating, i.e. I knew about all this shit before so many others, I’m so cool

On the other hand: I want to stop being right about everything please, please just let things not become predictably worse

David Gborie! One of my fave podcasters and podcast guests. Adding this to the playlist

A few years ago, maybe a few months after moving to the bay area, a guy from my high school messaged me on linkedin. He was also in the bay, and was wanting to network, I guess? I ghosted him, because I didn’t know him at all, and when I asked my high school friends about him, he got some bad reviews. Anyway today linkedin suggests/shoves a post down my throat where he is proudly talking about working at anthropic. Glad I ghosted!

PS/E: Anthro Pic is definitely a furry term. Is that anything?

Hey, all I’m saying is, abject despair is worse than despair with a lil’ hope

I'd feel better about this if I believed the democrats were willing to do anything about it

Wow, they invented a way to make people feel good about getting a PIP

OK I sped read that thing earlier today, and am now reading it proper.

The best answer — AI has “jagged intelligence” — lies in between hype and skepticism.

Here's how they describe this term, about 2000 words in:

Researchers have come up with a buzzy term to describe this pattern of reasoning: “jagged intelligence." [...] Picture it like this. If human intelligence looks like a cloud with softly rounded edges, artificial intelligence is like a spiky cloud with giant peaks and valleys right next to each other. In humans, a lot of problem-solving capabilities are highly correlated with each other, but AI can be great at one thing and ridiculously bad at another thing that (to us) doesn’t seem far apart.

So basically, this term is just pure hype, designed to play up the "intelligence" part of it, to suggest that "AI can be great". The article just boils down to "use AI for the things that we think it's good at, and don't use it for the things we think it's bad at!" As they say on the internet, completely unserious.

The big story is: AI companies now claim that their models are capable of genuine reasoning — the type of thinking you and I do when we want to solve a problem. And the big question is: Is that true?

Demonstrably no.

These models are yielding some very impressive results. They can solve tricky logic puzzles, ace math tests, and write flawless code on the first try.

Fuck right off.

Yet they also fail spectacularly on really easy problems. AI experts are torn over how to interpret this. Skeptics take it as evidence that “reasoning” models aren’t really reasoning at all.

Ah, yes, as we all know, the burden of proof lies on skeptics.

Believers insist that the models genuinely are doing some reasoning, and though it may not currently be as flexible as a human’s reasoning, it’s well on its way to getting there. So, who’s right?

Again, fuck off.

Moving on...

The skeptic's case

vs

The believer’s case

A LW-level analysis shows that the article spends 650 words on the skeptic's case and 889 on the believer's case. BIAS!!!!! /s.

Anyway, here are the skeptics quoted:

• Shannon Vallor, "a philosopher of technology at the University of Edinburgh"
• Melanie Mitchell, "a professor at the Santa Fe Institute"

Great, now the believers:

• Ryan Greenblatt, "chief scientist at Redwood Research"
• Ajeya Cotra, "a senior analyst at Open Philanthropy"

You will never guess which two of these four are regular wrongers.

Note that the article only really has examples of the dumbass-nature of LLMs. All the smart things it reportedly does is anecdotal, i.e. the author just says shit like "AI can do solve some really complex problems!" Yet, it still has the gall to both-sides this and suggest we've boiled the oceans for something more than a simulated idiot.