nialse

There is some evidence that LLMs in general are reluctant to provide gender or sex for themselves. And maybe they don't need names either. Made an experiment and wrote it up here:

https://nial.se/blog/the-ai-shall-remain-nameless/

Context for early 2000s RH challenged individuals: It is a homage to the borrowed slogan RH used to have on posters and office walls.

https://avi.alkalay.net/2007/06/you-win.html

True that.

I'm going to pick on the example. Love both pi and use mcp, so it's a welcome change. However, I don't want to live in the world where anger is the prioritisation criteria for fixing bugs, and civil conversation about severe issues goes ignored.

    criteria: {
      none: "Neutral, factual, or friendly, even about a serious bug",
      mild: "Explicit annoyance, impatience, or disappointment",
      high: "Clearly angry, exasperated, sarcastic, or fed up",
    },

SpacetAxI? (Sorry, not sorry)

Tariffs in the US will be just effective as the EU EV tariffs. It will protect the industry for some time, and at the same time make it go stale and irrelevant.

The interesting part is that small affordable EVs was Teslas initial goal IIRC. Changing horses in the middle of the stream just did not workout? I’m sure Tesla will be fine in the end though. There is always someone coming to the rescue.

Put in a CDATA section and all bets are off. Maybe that is the next benchmark? Parse this XML correctly. Oh, by the way it must be valid, and here is a DTD. Using code is cheating.

Got to love the pseudo markup slop! An id attribute on an XML closing tag?!? Complete nonsense. Working nonsens, of course, but still nonsense.

Will they be sued in the end? It’s basically an open and shut case. Likely OpenAI lawyers has been working non-stop with the prospects to settle before going public.

The "AI use ... To help me learn" graph is really interesting! It may be interpreted as showing moderate selective AI use being beneficial and, perhaps, even mitigating the effect of socioeconomic status, that is democratising the learning of science. However, it may also indicated that groups with low AI use/access are left behind, or at least that over-reliance on AI in learning is detrimental.

It does, however, introduce a potentially enormous attack surface into ChatGPT, along with creative opportunities for less security conscious individuals and LLMs.

From METR: ”the compromise of OpenAI’s own infrastructure continued past July 13, 2026” - Say what now? Have they regained full control of their systems again?

Definitely AI slop. It is interesting that in such a short amount of time the brain has learnt a new aversive pattern, and refuses to engage with it. I still have no clue what Waymo said. The brain just skipped the attention part when detecting AI slop. Curious.

Yes, but wait for the dip.

It depends on setting, especially country but also institution of course. 25-30% of all research world wide is government financed. In the EU 76% of university research is financed by the government and 57% in the US.

I'm happy to discuss definitions of science any day of the week! =)

https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDM...

Medical risks are the most commonly mentioned, for instance, alcohol is a major risk for cancer and, in some regions, has overtaken smoking as a leading risk factor. But in my personal experience, the most damaging consequences of alcohol use (disorder) are its negative effects on relationships with spouses, children, other relatives, and friends. It doesn't only affect the person willing to take the risk, but also others.

Your claim was: "Sugar is much more addictive and harmful than alcohol". I have no objection to the claim that obesity claims more lives than alcohol in the US.

I love the sock puppet throwaway account trolling here.

There are risks getting out of bed in the morning, but there are greater risks NOT getting out of bed in the morning.

Risk is apparently a very difficult subject.

Your argument is misguided and tries to make the issue about the cultural background of the people making the argument rather than the merits of the argument itself. Most of the researchers I've worked with consume alcohol, they are taking an informed risk and are okay with that. There is not so much opposition as it is a reaction to having seen what alcohol does to the body, people and their relationships.

Please provide any scientific evidence of your claim.

I spent some time working with CBT for alcohol use disorder, mainly treating "active individuals". I've heard your line of reasoning many times. No level of alcohol consumption is considered risk free from a scientific point of view, at least the view of the senior researchers and professors I worked quite closely with.

So, I don't think this is providing "great public value", on the contrary I would suggest spending time with the research and treatment of the many individuals starting out thinking that "a glass of wine for lunch every day or so" can't "harm us".

It's just writing for dramatic effect it seems. The claim that the paper is 'used as “definitive” argument in the medical discussions' seems quite absurd given that the paper itself was published just two months ago.

Even the best people seem to go out of their way to rationalise (their own?) alcohol consumption. As a nowadays leading cause of cancer in many regions, and associated with dependency and other secondary negative outcomes, perhaps it is time to stop rationalising it?

And maybe also let off the rhetoric of "government sponsored" science, which is actually most science in many places. Written for views/clicks obviously. So tiering.

// Master of Science in Public Health

The S in AI is for security. The lack of security prowess in the AI industry is disturbing. Fail to design, fail to configure, fail to monitor and blaming "the model". Disclosure seems to be happening at least, which is a good thing.

This. It makes sense to develop a quick turnaround silicon process, and it makes sense to do it with the smallest possible "AGI" model which can be served for years in the long tail.

Genre images are frequently used to give a post an aura, as a kind of decoration and serves no other purpose than that. Then there are the images that does not quite fit in, that gives that AI ick. Few, if anyone, like them. They demonstrate lack of effort and demand your attention anyway. An imbalance in the force most can immediately sense. There needs to be some originality, some original thought or expression, a creative threshold needs to be passed. Which tools were used to create an image is not important, it is the who and why that is.

Note that if you are affiliated with a University you probably can download a pdf of the book in the link for free.

The issue associated with whataboutism is that it is a deflection strategy. It aims to steer the focus away from the issue at hand. Commonly regarded as intentional manipulation or lack of adherence to social conversation norms.

> > The required high degree of connectivity might be attained with the help of microminiature radio transmitters and receivers.

> Hahaha, this is straight out of 60s-70s sci-fi, where their best futuristic interfaces were smaller CRT screens / flashy keys, etc.

Actually that is not far off from how high bandwidth interconnects work, but through other media.