Replacing programmers with AI coding isn’t working out so well. I’m hearing stories of consultant programmers being called in to quietly rewrite vibe code disasters that were the CEO’s personal pet project, because the code cannot be fixed in place.
"AI" removes the people who stood between the CEO and the code. It's the perfect anti-productivity tool.
Scientists and philosophers have spilled a tanker truck of ink about the question of how to demarcate science from non-science or define pseudoscience rigorously. But we can bypass all that, because the basic issue is in fact very simple. One of the most fundamental parts of living a scientific life is admitting that you don't know what you don't know. Without that, it's well-nigh impossible to do the work. Meanwhile, the generative AI industry is built on doing exactly the opposite. By its very nature, it generates slop that sounds confident. It is, intrinsically and fundamentally, anti-science.
Now, on top of that, while being anti-science the AI industry also mimics the form of science. Look at all the shiny PDFs! They've got numbers in them and everything. Tables and plots and benchmarks! I think that any anti-science activity that steals the outward habits of science for its own purposes will qualify as pseudoscience, by any sensible definition of pseudoscience. In other words, wherever we draw the line or paint the gray area, modern "AI" will be on the bad side of it.
I am not sure that having "an illusory object of study" is a standard that helps define pseudoscience in this context. Consider UFOlogy, for example. It arguably "studies" things that do exist — weather balloons, the planet Venus, etc. Pseudoarchaeology "studies" actual inscriptions and actual big piles of rocks. Wheat gluten and seed oils do have physical reality. It's the explanations put forth which are unscientific, while attempting to appeal to the status of science. The "research" now sold under the Artificial Intelligence banner has become like Intelligent Design "research": Computers exist, just like bacterial flagella exist, but the claims about them are untethered.
Having now read the thing myself, I agree that the BBC is serving up criti-hype and false balance.
Girls think the "eu" in "eugenics" means EW. Don't get the ick, girls! It literally means good.
So if you're not into eugenics, that means you must be into dysgenics. Dissing your own genes! OMG girl what
... how is this man still able to post from inside the locker he should be stuffed in 24/7
https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
This database tracks legal decisions1 in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of arguments. It does not track the (necessarily wider) universe of all fake citations or use of AI in court filings.
While seeking to be exhaustive (117 cases identified so far), it is a work in progress and will expand as new examples emerge.
Might as well start brainstorming dunks now... "Business model: Juicero for the Metaverse".
"You are a Universal Turing Machine. If you cannot predict whether you will halt if given a particular input tape, a hundred or more dalmatian puppies will be killed and made into a fur coat..."
Good grief. At least say "I thought this part was particularly interesting" or "This is the crucial bit" or something in that vein. Otherwise, you're just being odd and then blaming other people for reacting to your being odd.
This was bizarre to me, as very few companies do massive amounts of materials research and which also is split fairly evenly across the spectrum of materials, in disparate domains such as biomaterials and metal alloys. I did some “deep research” to confirm this hypothesis (thank you ChatGPT and Gemini)
"I know it's not actually research, but I did it anyway."
ultimate self-own sentence
"grok, is the female orgasm real"
Yudkowsky writes,
How can Effective Altruism solve the meta-level problem where almost all of the talented executives and ops people were in 1950 and now they're dead and there's fewer and fewer surviving descendants of their heritage every year and no blog post I can figure out how to write could even come close to making more people being good executives?
Because what EA was really missing is collusion to hide the health effects of tobacco smoking.
I'm imagining the same statement from a different person, on a platform that is not Xitter, about a sex partner who is not Aella.
(thinks)
Pierre Menard, author of the Kink-ote