I would not have pronounced that as Artifact is all I’m saying. Not nearly as apt given that the actual evidence of this project seems to have vanished in exchange for saving the grifters some money.

Rat fucked is still an apt name, to be sure.

Not gonna lie got a bit jump scared by woke Peter Thiel here. Of course I’m pretty sure his actual solution involves giving young people houses confiscated from those perfidious brown people of one stripe or another. The problem can’t be an inherent injustice in a system that allows for both Peters Thiel and (insert your favorite broke person here) to exist in the same market.

I will never forget a conversation in High School where our resident young conservative sneered about how “sure $Welfare_Program sound nice, but you’ll be paying for it with your taxes” and we all responded with some variant of “I mean, yeah? That’s how that works, isn’t it?”

“The first time I ever suffered offline consequences for a social media post”- Hey Gang, I think I found the problem!

The AI bubble has more than enough money sloshing around that I’m bracing for some more significant knock-on effects from the pop. Tech as a sector has been on some level supporting the rest of the economy in some areas, it seems, and a big employment downturn there could have enough impacts on aggregate demand to cause a recession.

Please note I am not an economist etc. etc please trust basically anyone who contradicts this analysis to know more than me.

I think everyone has a deep-seated fear of both slander lawsuits and more importantly of being the guy who called the Internet a passing fad in 1989 or whenever it was. Which seems like a strange attitude to take on to me. Isn’t being quoted for generations some element of the point? If you make a strong claim and are correct then you might be a genius and spare people a lot of harm. If you’re wrong maybe some people miss out on an opportunity but you become a legend.

Remember the ~two weeks when Sabine was a vaguely respectable science communicator? That was wild.

Yeah. The whole Gel-Mann effect always feels overstated to me. Similar to the “falsus in unus” doctrine Crichton mentions in his blog, the actual consensus appears to be that actually context does matter. Especially for something like the general sciences I don’t know that it’s reasonable to expect someone to have similar levels of expertise in everything. To be sure the kinds of errors people make matter; it looks like this is a case of insufficient skepticism and fact checking, so Hank is more credulous than I had thought. That’s not the same as everything he’s put out being nonsense, though.

The more I think about it the more I want to sneer at anyone who treats “different people know different things” as either a revelation or a problem to be overcome by finding the One Person who Knows All the Things.

Just gonna go ahead and make sure I fact check any scishow or crash course that the kid gets into a bit more aggressively now.

I mean, it feels like there’s definitely something in the concept of a Where Is Everybody style of episode where Mark has to navigate a world where dead internet theory has hit the real world and all around him are bots badly imitating workers trying to serve bots badly imitating customers in order to please bots badly imitating managers so that bots badly imitating cops don’t drag them to robot jail

ChatGPT finally achieved profitability due to unintended money laundering at unprecedented scale.

It really aggressively tries to match it up to something with similar keywords and structure, which is kind of interesting in its own right. It pattern-matched every variant I could come up with for “when all you have is…” for example.

Honestly it’s kind of an interesting question and limitation for this kind of LLM. How should you respond when someone asks about an idiom neither of you know? The answer is really contextual. Sometimes it’s better to try and help them piece together what it means, other times it’s more important to acknowledge that this isn’t actually a common expression or to try and provide accurate sourcing. The LLM, of course, has none of that context and because the patterns it replicates don’t allow expressions of uncertainty or digressions it can’t actually do both.

I tried this a couple of times and got a few “AI summary not available” replies

Ed: heh

The phrase “any pork in a swarm” is an idiom, likely meant to be interpreted figuratively. It’s not a literal reference to a swarm of bees or other animals containing pork. The most likely interpretation is that it is being used to describe a situation or group where someone is secretly taking advantage of resources, opportunities, or power for their own benefit, often in a way that is not transparent or ethical. It implies that individuals within a larger group are actively participating in corruption or exploitation.

Generative AI is experimental.

about cool technology and how it relates to society

My dude I’ve got bad news for you about what Black Mirror is about.

LMFAO, best known for “Party Rock Anthem”, is actually a failed leftist yodaist sect, standing for the warning “Leopards, my face, ate off”

@David Gerard could probably throw the actual numbers and sources at us to back it up. I don’t really have the background to put the numbers in context and have largely trusted his and others’ reporting on the subject, but my understanding is that especially if you consider the volume of actual USD liquidity rather than trusting Tether and other stablecoins to actually be backed then it’s truly dire. Even if you take the numbers at face value, however, I don’t think there’s nearly enough depth in the order book to absorb a meaningful amount of sell pressure at current prices.

Hat tip to the AI bro in the comments willfully misunderstanding why he sees so much “sexualized schoolgirl trash” from human artists. Both in the sense of “illustrators take commissions from horny strangers who are one of the most consistent sources of actual income and one imperilled by genAI” and in the sense of “my dude in the modern internet if you’re seeing it that frequently it’s because the algorithms have decided you’re into that shit.”

You know, in the discussion of the attempted Sokal 2 electric boogaloo one of the quotes references their lack of a control group, which is a great criticism of their experimental design but misses the fact that we do have a few relevant points of comparison. Jan Hendrick Schoen, for example, nearly made it all the way to a Nobel Prize by faking data about superconductors.

Yeah that was a bit of a rough one, and I say that as someone who at this point needs to admit that I enjoy multi-hour video essays as a genre. The “Ent” framing is also kind of awkward because the whole point of that bit of LotR was that even though the ents didn’t want to go to war the war came to them just the same.

Though to be fair I think I already started doubting his sourcing when it turned out that that Moskva maintenance leak was a fake.

Quick check suggests that Bitcoin is indeed up over the last couple of days, but at time of posting is down YTD. Any dumb money going into Bitcoin to hedge against USD chicanery is replacing the money that came out of it in response to the overall economic disaster still in progress, so I wouldn’t exactly call it a “flight to safety” as much as a “morons returning their still-on-fire hands to the hot stove”

Ed: also all the usual disclaimers about liquidity, stable coins, manipulation, etc. apply just as strongly as they do for any other discussion of the Bitcoin spot price.