Grimblewald

Good quality well organised and accessible knowledve on a staggering array of topics is at everyones fingertips via wikipedia. Yet, still, I frequently find myself discussing things in depth with friends and collegues that we could easily just lookup and confirm. We dont do this though, because in the process of trying to establish truth using only what is known to us as a group, often creates far more interesting lines of inquery and insight. These are frequently far more potent and useful than anything we can lookup and sometimes are novel enough we cannot find anything like it online. This can only happen because we all applied ourselves and the cognitive varient we embody.

So, the problem with AI is that it is a regression to some mean of minds + corporate bias introduced. It contributes at best one person worth of input variance and is wholly incapable of contributing efficiently or effectively. AI does not contribute effectively and units of insight offered per word read is abysmal for AI text, and so carries enormoys cognitive burden to refine the slop into the simole coherent point actually made, if there even is one, which you often don't know until the effort in refining has been expended. So, we introduce a lot of labor to discussuons by including AI when best case it may offer about as much variance a single person who is not willfully ignorant can offer.

So, I imagine I am not alone in this, and when I talk with humans, what I want is their mental model of the world to contribute, not some corporate mouthpiece i could query directly if that's what I wanted. AI is not exactly inaccessible.

So, i think most are hypervigilant in pointing out AI in their communities for a variety of reasons , but a common theme will be that those who use AI to do their thinking are a single entity in terms of what they actually add to the discussion, and spread over many people it is the age old spam problem, a single mind having disproportionate signal strength in a discussion where all voices should carry equal energy.

but also, throw a weird variation of the game at the computer and it falls apart. Need something novel? llm's wont cut it. Doubly so if what is being done goes against established conventions, even if those are demonstrably wrong, to keep an llm from undermini g everything you first need to show it all the proof and evidence before it can be trusted to help, which for a complex problem can eaisly be 30-50% of co text limits.

LLM's are good at solved problems applied to known or similar to known applications, otherwise they're not going to match humans.

Odd to see so many 0 karma accounts piling in to decry this as fake so quickly after it's posting. I think we're all expecting something like this, weather this post is true or not. It's pervasive in many adjacent items, like your goddamn TV listening to everything, to companies being caught out in the past for doing things like this constantly. It is their entire business model, their life-blood. They'll never stop spying and they'll never stop finding new ways to spy.

It should surprise absolutely no one that things like this are going on, weather or not this post is credible. I agree, provenance of this particular post is a touch dubious, but even less trustworthy are the comments here saying this is bullshit.

almost, it's just a stream of conciousness reply because effort spent on refining a comment must be matched by post effort or you'll burn out.

Depends on journal. Predatory and low tier journals that's true for, but at higher tiers it is far less common. You still get the occasional lazy reviewer, but typically they wont be asked back if the editor isn't lazy as well. The system certainly has its flaws though.

Retractions do happen as well, especially if it's clearly proven malpractice. I've been behind 2 retractions so far, but it has never (in my experience) happened at the "contact corresponding author and seek clarification" stage of escalation. Typically it requires escalation to the journal itself.

Interesting idea, but it reads like an LLM write up. For me to engage properly with your written work, I need to see human effort. There are too many half-baked ideas out there, and unless you, as the author, thought the idea is worth putting proper effort into communicating, why should I think of this anything other than something someone said in passing? One way you could communicate effort to me, and likely others, rather than this work looking like the output of some LLM, is to use graphs, schematics and figures to support claims. Metrics are extremely misleading, only really useful when we've verified what is being measured is what one assumes is being measured. Metrics on their own are often deeply bullshit, so without any kind of graphs of trends or other important qualities, I assume it's all LLM output, since LLM's will default to not plotting anything while humans tend to go the opposite way.

Also, more effort into completeness needs to go in. Perhaps it is in there, but you just report an "accuracy" without defining what that means. The more I look, the more it starts becoming apparent this likely hasn't received any real human over-sight at all. "What does Grassmann mixing actually buy us?" It buys nothing, because it is a concept, Claude.

Neat idea, but in my opinion devoid of critical thinking / analysis or the level of rigour required to be suitable for broader dissemination. I'd put effort into making this a more credible body of work ASAP. Slop like this WILL cripple your standing in the field.

not really, it would simply be the first of many headaches that just get worse as time goes on. Windows is a festering blight, it costs you more and more in bullshit you deal with the longer you have it.

For example, I cannot currentl use the ms suite, like word or excel, because it asks me to log into an institutional account that I dont have, despite my account being the owner of the licenses for the suite running on my laptop. Make that make sense. All because i opened an institutional word document on it, i've tried fully reinstalling, no dice. i've tried nuking caches and registry entries, no dice. Window's basic functionality is indistinguishable from maleware.

memeory bandwidth is typically the limiting factor, not compute. Your card quite likely has 2x or more the bandwidth.

Fable is generally massively overhyped IMO. Anthropic has decent offerings, but they're over priced and matched too closely by things magnitudes cheaper AND faster, and since anything interesting isnt gonna get bailed by AI first try, being able to test and review sooner means getting a finished toy sooner as well. Combine that with local models that dont shift underneath you in behaviour like anthropuc/oai do, they're actually gonna have a really hard time convincing anyone like me their service is worth it. Probably explains the fear mongering and push towards controlling local model development and dissemination.

This is it for me, it feels like someone developing alongside me, rather than something like Claude which is constantly fighting to degrade code to a point where it and only it knows what the fuck is going on anymore, which would be defensible if it was at least good code but it isn't.

on the flip side, some early adopters of the tech have been scaling back or removing. Which would both offset gains from new-comers as an increase and also reduces the willingness of people to take the plunge.

There's no doubt AI companies can be profitable and bring value, but anthropic and OAI are horrifically over-valued at the moment, and there is no credible read that currently signals engaging in trade of these companies stock is anything other than engaging in greater fool theory.

I agree propaganda bot traffic almost certainly doesn't come from datacenters but rather proxies in locations of interest, but those bots must live somewhere and that somewhere is these Yandex datacenters. That said, I agree with your core point, I also doubt cloudflare has any way of tracking these types of bot.