ceroxylon

The voice is one thing, but I have encountered multiple 'tech support' teams and platforms that will respond to me in pure, unedited LLM output.

I know this because the topic is usually an obscure issue, and I have already gone back-and-forth with multiple LLMs to see where their boundary of knowledge is on it, and it will often include hallucinations along the way (e.g. pointing to old/nonexistent settings pathways)

So when the first reply from the official 'support' channel contains the exact same nonexistent settings pathways, it is easy to conclude they are sending me the LLM output without doing the verification steps that I have already done on my end. When I point out what doesn't exist, the reply is always a similar flavor of the usual LLM "you're absolutely right" response after being corrected.

If a permanent injunction is granted in the Wolff case, does that mean Anthropic would have to re-train all of their available models, but explicitly exclude those books from the dataset?

While reading Alan Watts' book The Wisdom of Insecurity (published in 1951), I noticed that he predicted the rise of something akin to large language models with eerie accuracy.

It is interesting to me that the same feeling of societal dread (the first chapter is called "The Age of Anxiety") is still relevant 75 years later, with the very issue that Watts predicted on p. 69 being front and center in our news cycles.

It would be interesting to know which model is internally viewed as being best at jokes, I have a personal humor benchmark and so far models will either steal jokes (from comedians like Maria Bamford), or write something very unfunny.

-20% is today's movement, it is -37% on the 5 day (which includes the data from yesterday).

It looks like them explaining that certs are only a small part of their business did not fly with shareholders.

This was the most concerning part of that report for me:

>Some banks also saw agents contact call centers or take actions that appeared independent of user instructions, and executives say they often can't tell a human from an agent, or an authorized agent from a rogue one.

>Weirdly, members of a field of size pn are equivalent to polynomials of degree up to n

Wouldn't it be equivalent to polynomials of degree less than n (up to n−1)?

Reminds me that Plato viewed oligarchy as being better than democracy, as long as laws are being upheld. When laws are not being upheld, a lawless democracy is better than a lawless oligarchy.

From the article:

>That’s not just because the price of gold reached record high prices. In February 2026, the tons of gold exported may have set an all-time record.

I felt the article deeply, but I don't think learning anything is a waste of time. You contribute to the world by helping everyone around you in any way you can, the river is beautiful because it flows.