jazzpush2

Burning man is an event for typical Silicon Valley folks to find community. The event is so lame because the people are - they spent their formative years following a preconceived plan laid out for them by their parents, instead of pursuing hobbies they're passionate about. Now they're playing catchup, and it comes off contrived and corny. (Not everyone is this way, of course, but by now the majority are, and so I'm painting with broad strokes).

Most of the advertised experiences here come naturally as parts of passion-formed communities.

The down side is that it really isn't really possible to break into such communities in a meaningful way without having already done them for years before you've turned ~18-20yo.

Whether it's team sports, rock climbing, surfing, music, etc. You can start [skateboarding] at age 25, but you'll never be a real [skater], or have the experiences that came along with spending the formative years of your life dedicated to it. Replace [skateboarding]/[skater] with your hobby of choice.

You mean pushing everything up in one giant commit with Claude isn't learning!?

Not surprising. Many academics held in high-esteem in these behavioral offshoots are nothing more than frauds to begin with. Almost every X-studies paper is equally fluff these days (see the recent frontpage CHI post) - at least these have some semblance of theory given their equations, though are still largely garbage.

"I’ve been avoiding GenAI research because I feel so conflicted about it, but I don’t think I’ll be able to avoid it forever. As an educator, I’m still working out my own thinking on the role of GenAI in work by students and faculty."

It's the final quarter of 2026. Academics really do live in a self-created bubble.

Academics are the kings of, and have the most to gain from, gatekeeping.

"This is changing the power we have, let's create a new power structure where we're still at the top, and in control."

No surprise here.

It's nice to wax poetic, but they should absolutely pay the researchers here.

> If you understood how they were solved

My guess, based on this response alone, is that you're an academic, given the holier-than-thou pretention. I understand how lean works, having done enough pure maths in my statistics PhD, and now work for a frontier lab.

And yet, I don't see how any of it bolsters the point. I do see realms of Math PhDs posting, 'iT's sO OvEr' blog posts and lamenting time spent studying math. I'm sure they understand the proofs better than I ever will, and they seem quite rattled. Probably just not as smart as you.

Just ignoring all the recently solved math problems human, huh?

Nothing new here in the idea, implementation, or narrative. Someone just pointed to an AI and said, 'Create a website explaining LLM's step-by-step.' Nothing is even visualized.

These social science/econ style jobs at frontier labs are the ultimate free ride. Get paid bank with absolutely zero need to publish anything of quality.

I would legitimately purchase a 'smart' phone that's just basically a 15-year old flip phone with maps and a modern battery + software stack. Awaiting the inevitable analog trend to kick back up so there are solid options here.

I'm responding to a post, citing a particular research method, which the author claims six times to display the model's thinking.

You can dismiss the criticism with pedantics about what he means by 'thinking', but what I said is very clear if you read the underlying paper.

Zuckerberg: "Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard. Just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SMS"

Friend: "What? How'd you manage that one?"

Zuckerberg: "People just submitted it. They trust me. Dumb fucks"

" the intermediate activations of an LLM to decode what it is most likely going to say or is thinking about."

There is no thinking in these models. The J space is a basic technique measuring how much the influence of shifting a token earlier changes it later. Anthropic can wrap it up in a 100-page paper peppered with language about 'consciousness' and other, but that is basically the gist of the entire method.

Can you say anything specific? If you're going to criticize policy, there are many specific things you can say. 'Keeps China down' is not only incorrect, but meaningless itself.