ADeerAppeared

> If you care then you'll fact check before publishing.

Doing a proper fact check is as much work as doing the entire research by hand, and therefore, this system is useless to anyone who cares about the result being correct.

> I don't see why this changes.

And because of the above this system should not exist.

> The proof is in the fact that it flies, not what it is constructed from.

And LLMs do not.

> "But it looks like reasoning to me"

My condolences. You should go see a doctor about your inability to count the number of 'R's in a word.

It's called absurd not because it's not understood, or because there aren't technical counterarguments to be made.

It's called absurd because it does not deserve to be humoured the effort of writing out those arguments.

> Here's some names in the field. 15/19 think the risk is significant

A list that is largely a pile of clowns and morons, many with direct financial interests in amplifying the "danger"/power of AI.

This is why the doomsday cult is not taken serious.

> The employer sets the terms of the interview. If you don’t like them, don’t apply.

What you're missing here is that this is an individual's answer to a systemic problem. You don't apply when it's _one_ obnoxious employer.

When it's standard practice across the entire industry, we have a problem.

> submitting a fraudulent resume because you disagree with the required qualifications.

This is already worryingly common practice because employers lie about the required qualifications.

Honesty gets your resume shredded before a human even looked at it. And employers refusing to address that situation is just making everything worse and worse.

I'm sorry but what the fuck is this product pitch?

Anyone who's done any kind of substantial document research knows that it's a NIGHTMARE of chasing loose ends & citogenesis.

Trusting an LLM to critically evaluate every source and to be deeply suspect of any unproven claim is a ridiculous thing to do. These are not hard reasoning systems, they are probabilistic language models.

> It isn't banned

Yet. They have clearly voiced their desire for this.

> it just won't be state funded.

This isn't just "The government is not funding research into this", this is the government maintaining a list of thoughtcrime and banning researchers from using words.

In what sense?

The "Mugging" going on is that "AI safety" folks proclaim that AI might have an "extinction risk" or infinite-negative outcome.

And they proclaim that therefore, we should be devoting considerable resources (i.e. on the scale of billions) to avoiding that even if the actual chance of this scenario is minimal to astronomically small. "ChatGPT won't kill us now, but in 1000 years it might" kinda shit. For some this ends with "and therefore you need to approve my research funding application", for others (including Altman) it has mutated into "We must build AGI first because we're the only people who can do it without destroying the world".

The problem is that this is absurd. They're focussing on a niche scenario whilst ignoring horrific problems caused in the here and now.

"Skynet might happen in Y3K" is no excuse to flood the current internet with AI slop, create a sizeable economic bubble, seek to replace entire economic sectors with outsourced "Virtual" employees, and perhaps most ethically concerning of all: create horrific CSAM torment nexuses where even near-destitute gig economy workers in Kenya walk out of the job.

Yet "AI safety" folks would have you believe so.

> It feels like they always anthropomorphize AI as some sort of "God".

It's not like that. It is that. They're playing Pascal's Wager against an imaginary future god.

The most maddening part is that the obvious problem with that has been well identified by those circles, dubbed "Pascal's Mugging", but they're still rambling on about "extinction risk" whilst disregarding the very material ongoing issues AI causes.

They're all clowns whose opinions are to be immediately discarded.

> The same argument applies to essentially all technology, like a computer.

Why yes, it does.

Even setting aside that most AI hype: Yes, automation is in fact quite sinister if you do not go out of your way to deal with the downsides. Putting people out of a job is bad, actually.

Yes. The industrial revolution was a great boon to humanity that drastically improved quality of living and wealth. It also created horrific torment nexuses like mechanical looms into which we sent small children to get maimed.

And we absolutely could've had the former without the latter; Child labour laws handily proved it was possible, and should have been implemented far sooner.

This is a hilarious claim given that none of the current action is going through the legislative path, and the tech billionaires freely bend the knee to Trump even before the inauguration.

What's even the material point here? That "the left" pierced the taboo on speech censorship? Trump's currently wiping his ass with the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution. He does not care about taboo.

> Your stereotypes belie a lack of familiarity with researchers

I was referencing what the current Trump administration deems "meritocratic" and seeks to "return" to, their policy changes are in direct response and opposition to the demographics you describe.

> Sure you can say that crypto is only bubble, but that doesn't really add any information. The bubble can't be "inflating" since there's no ratio to a non-bubble version.

The core point is that there is (essentially^[1]) nothing keeping the price up besides speculator interest. That means the price can collapse catastrophically. Saying crypto is a bubble is useful because it has the defining traits and dangers of a bubble.

[1]: The big exception here is that a lot of the price is also kept afloat by the absolutely ridiculous amount of financial fraud in this ecosystem. Most of the "dollars" chasing Bitcoin are fake, and it's still unclear how insolvent the big stablecoins are.

The little exception is that there is a minimum floor; Cryptocurrencies have some utility as a payment system, which would give them some value. But the market rate for consumer payments is effectively if not literally zero, well below the amounts required to operate the mining/staking systems these currencies require.

>Why should somebody researching e.g. fusion for the Department of Energy also need to create a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan, to even apply?

Why?

Because a homogenous culture of researchers is less effective.

Because you are not just doing research on a topic, you are also training the next generation of scientists and field experts.

And the implication that the old boys club of white dudes is intrinsically the best "meritocratic" outcome is ridiculous. The history of science is full of people who had to fight that norm and succeed despite it.

> This should greatly reduce the overall bureaucratic nonsense in science and help get back to science simply being science without imposing ideological conformity tests.

Sure, sure. Except for the part where they're also censoring any science topics deemed "woke", where all funding now has to meet the president's ideological conformity test on subject and staff as well.

> we do KYC

And what then, is stopping governments from simply demanding you hand over a list of your customers? They will seek to enforce those currency controls you are subverting.

Your entire sales pitch here is based on a lack of transparency to "evil oppressive governments", whereas the US government (at least, once it gets it's shit together again in a few years), will just delete your company for helping the North Koreans evade sanctions if you don't have quite robust AML.