jtorsella

Thank you for pointing that out. But it still doesn’t support what you said, which is that only 65% of pangram’s fully AI claims are accurate. The “65% strict accuracy” rating is followed in the same sentence by a “97.5% inclusive accuracy” rating for the same reasons I pointed out above: pangram is systematically underrating the percentage AI in content, and it is tuned against producing false positives. The 32.5% in between the inclusive and strict accuracy ratings is entirely due to it estimating that 12 fully ai generated works were 60-80% AI, not the reverse. You can see that in table 4.

Your citation was incorrect. The data also shows that pangram reliably tells the difference between those two cases. The statistic you made up or hallucinated is not supported by your link, and you’re being disingenuous here.

Did you read the paper you are linking to? It records a 0% false positive rate for evaluation of human-authored controls, and fewer than 5% of the hybrid and humanized papers had their AI levels overestimated by pangram. It is not completely clear from the data, but it seems that depending on whether the n=2 overestimates were “100% ai generated” assessments, the study you link says pangram’s 100% AI assessments were right anywhere from 95-100%

Oh you’re right - sorry, I forgot that everyone knows that the key ideas of the article are correct so they don’t require any evidence.

To drop the sarcastic frame - the article either argues something that could be incorrect or it makes a meaningless argument. If it’s arguing something that could be otherwise then it needs to give evidence for the things it’s saying. It doesn’t and treats everything it’s saying as completely self-evident. But these are empirical assertions that need evidence to be proven true or false, and the article stands out in using zero evidence. Personally, I think that this inadvertently reveals the disdain for news is really part of a broader undervaluing of evidence in general, but I don’t think that’s provable really.

It’s pretty interesting to read what’s basically a long series of substantive empirical claims without a single citation. All the evidence necessary to support this argument is furnished entirely within the series of loosely-connected ideas and free-associations - an incredible feat for any article, much less a stream-of consciousness. Wow!

If we existed in a world where “News doesn’t make you more informed; it just makes you more confident the information you have is all there is.” was something that could be false, it would probably be Not Good to present it as true and move on here. Luckily, since this is an an obvious analytic truth, the author is right to simply say it and move on. As a suggestion to the author, it would be helpful to list all the propositions which need to be justifiable a priori for his argument to be justified (in this case all of them), so that readers can know whether or not to take him seriously at first glance.

I think this attitude is the reason that Elon is going to get away with agreeing with the statement in public. Most stories tiptoe around how extreme the statement is, and as a result he is now successfully deflecting on the issue.

The quoted tweet remains endorsed by the wealthiest and most powerful person on the planet. Hard to read? Disturbing? Yes, of course it is.

It’s very obvious that Elon and co would rather us concentrate on a blog post by someone else than his own words, words which are the real cause of this controversy. To that end, and since I think the actual cause is too often elided in these discussions:

[in response to a challenge to those saying ‘Hitler was right’ to justify saying so, a twitter account replies] “ Okay. Jewish [communities] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much. You want truth said to your face, there it is.”

Musk replied: “You have said the actual truth.”

I think it’s clear why Yaccarino and Musk want everyone focused on how many impressions a small subset of the antisemitic content on X got, and not the breathtaking antisemitism (and racism, although clearly “hordes of minorities” doesn’t raise as many eyebrows because nobody seems to care about that one) that musk himself endorses (and has not apologized for or retracted since).

This is very transparently a gross, cruel attempt to parody and belittle trans people, as is made clear by the people involved and the language:

“7 Tips on How To Come Out as Enhanced”

And the “believe the science” and “colonialist” bits are very much a conservative-doing-an-impression-of-a-liberal thing.

There’s worse if you read through their mission pages. I’m taken aback by the level of effort, honestly. It really astounds me how much money and effort there is behind ostracizing already marginalized people. It’s disgusting.

I appreciate that you are making an argument and will respond when I get a chance later in the day and after I read a few of the links - I’m familiar with like half of them.

If the existence of C cves in the kernel proves that it is impossible to write correct C, then by the same token any cves in any rust code prove the same thing about rust. This is such a lazy way of arguing. Say something about why the tradeoffs favor a more restrictive and less performant language or don’t, but don’t dismiss the work of many thousands of C developers that runs most enterprise systems with a knowing wave of the hand - it’s not serious.

Oh wow, someone should alert the Linux kernel maintainers. Do you want to tell them that it’s impossible to write correct C code? And the rust compiler team, too. After all, if nobody can write safe assembly then whatever they’re doing is either unsafe or magically gets the computer to understand rust directly. Or are they relying on LLVM for their code generation? I forget what language that’s written in, but nothing “unsafe” happens there surely.

All code is machine code at bottom. Including the code that maintains abstractions convincing enough for you to think the “memory-safety” of rust or any other language is a static and guaranteed thing and not something that needs “unsafe” scaffolding to support it.

I’m going to not engage on the Fauci/covid question (although I think you’re misremembering which subject he was less than forthright about - it was the efficacy of masking, and the dispute you’re talking about didn’t happen until later). But the real point the author is making is that neither “Hero Fauci smashes Rand Paul” nor “Did Fauci visit Wuhan in 2019?” are things that I want on my windows desktop default! Most of the trash isn’t even political, as the author mentions, but when it is political it is always extreme.

Interesting caveat, I didn’t know that.