spuz

If you've ever been tasked with coming up to speed on a system mostly documented with AI writing, you'll quickly realise how hard it is to trust anything you are reading. Even if the Claude documentation is 100% accurate, you'll never shake the worry that some crucial fact you founded your understanding on was wrong. It's a fast recipe for psychosis.

That's without even mentioning that AI writing can often state the what but not the why. That human perspective is usually the most valuable knowledge to get across in writing.

I think "people in left wing areas" is weird phrasing. There is nothing inherent about an area that makes it left or right wing. "People who live under governments who are responsive to collective issues such as climate and energy prices" would make more sense.

A costs less than B so we should do A is hardly a moral argument.

Why does it matter if it's easy to recognise? I prefer to know when I'm reading AI writing.

Then you have to decide what to do for public execution number 2 - do the same again and risk that people become desensitised to what's happening or just go even more violent?

This is the same approach I use. I don't know if it actually produces good results yet as I've only been doing this for about three months. At the very least it feels like I have some agency in my work which I think is one of the things people complain they lose to AI.

I don't understand how the rules of the game are being modelled.

And funnily even in the diverse set, most of the images show the pelican riding from left-to-right. There's a ton of bias in our data and even in our brains that you would need to erase to get true diversity.

Surely your conclusion should be that this was not the work of a spy - not a state sponsored one anyway. It's much more logical to conclude that he was working as a whistleblower or under some other personal agenda.

You can do that - it's called Spec Driven Development.

I am missing something about how this could hypothetically be useful. If I played this in the background it would be far too distracting to get any actual work done.

Perhaps it's the moment that the likes of Terence Tao hand over the reins to the likes of Grant Sanderson.

I said this when OpenAI announced they had solved a Millennium prize problem: solving open problems for the sake of it will lose its cachet. AI companies will no longer benefit by making these announcements. They've proven the effectiveness of their tool. If people want to use them to advance human knowledge then let them do that. There's no benefit to humanity to turn electricity into proofs just for the sake of it.

Yes but OpenAI, NVIDIA, Kakao, Apple have said they will also implement SynthID