chaos

It's a TV show on PBS. People bring antiques to be appraised, and an expert tells them what they have, what's special about it, and how much it could be worth. The fun ones have someone coming in like "this was my grandmother's cabinet growing up and I haven't thought twice about it" and then the appraiser telling them "this was made by the most famous carpenter in 1890's Massachusetts, it's worth $20,000" or similar stories.

Not just a disadvantage, a cognitive disadvantage. @grok is this true?????????? my critical thinking skills have atrophied to nothing now that i rely on ai, i need u gronk

That sounds like a problem for Future Leadership, I've got quarterly goals to hit and the shareholders really want to hear about how I'm using AI to ~~do some unnecessary layoffs despite record profits~~ reposition our company for the future.

Older Unix systems used to only do the first 8 bytes for passwords. Sometimes for my own amusement when logging into one of the Sun machines at school, I'd type in enough of my password to count and then just mash the keyboard.

“Superintelligence is intelligence beyond the sum of all humans,” he wrote in a LinkedIn post Thursday. “It is reasonable to predict that we are going to have specialized AI savants in every field within five years.”

That is insane. I can't even get one of these things to tell me "no, that API doesn't exist", it always makes one up that would be perfect for what I need if it existed, then apologizes profusely when I tell it it was wrong. It can't write any original or novel code, just boilerplate that matches what it has seen before. What's going to change in 5 years to suddenly give it creativity and a sense of self-awareness of its own knowledge?

There are these, but I suspect their main benefit is that they make physics equations use nicer numbers, not as much for the layperson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

(Postal worker or mail carrier)

Stake through her heart and garlic 'round her neck

:(){ :|:& };:

And doesn't understand LLMs, which don't "learn" a damn thing after the training is completed. The only variation after that is random numbers and the input it receives.

I only have so many minutes to spend on this plane of existence, so if I look through something and decide "this isn't enough to go anywhere", then no, I'm not going to spend more time on it. I'd be happy to be wrong and see Trump and his cronies get brought down by a ragtag group of statisticians who found the truth and didn't give up until justice was served, but I really don't think that'll happen.

... did you read the update to that last link? Kinda undermined quite a bit of this.

I'm open to the idea that a conspiracy happened. We know they aren't above things like sending an alternate slate of electoral votes and then hoping to override the legitimate results in Congress, because that absolutely did happen. But stealing seven separate elections in all the swing states is a hell of a tough job, and harder to do it without being caught for months. If it did happen, there'd be more evidence than just statistical anomalies within the official results. You'd see people recorded as voting who say they never did, you'd see exit polls that don't make sense, you'd see an audit reveal missing paper ballots, there'd be something more. And even if it was the perfect crime, you'll need to find a flaw to actually get anything done about it anyway. There isn't enough here to say it happened. There's enough to look into some suspicious stuff in a few places, and go ahead and check those out, but don't get your hopes up or say that it's the only conclusion. The simplest and most obvious answer remains the most likely: the country elected Trump by choice.