What are you doing now? I feel like after I graduate I'm gonna have to find a new field.

If it's actually exploiting a bug in a formal system, no. If it's a natural-language (unformalized) document which no one can understand, no. On the other hand a formal proof not using bugs which can't be understood, is still considered a proof, though its value is lower than an understandable proof (because as you said in another comment, the real value is in understanding rather than theorems). The prototypical example before LLMs was the proof of the four-color theorem which relied on computer-checked casework.

I don't want to come and help "balance out" someone who thinks that using they/them pronouns is worse than committing genocide.

Does anyone really think this, or are you just using hyperbole?

Not hyperbole. Hanania, Manifest promoted speaker, wrote "Why Do I Hate Pronouns More Than Genocide?" in May 2022.

I just can't, it's like that one scene from Austin Powers.

Mr. Costantino said the design was not at fault and that the towering mast, which stood 237 feet tall, had not created “any kind of problem.”

“The ship was an unsinkable ship,” he said. “I say it, I repeat it.”

- Designer of sunken ship

CS has a huge number of people who think you can derive the solutions to social problems from first principles. It's impossible to reason with them.

The normal way to reproduce information which can only be found in a specific source would be to cite that source when quoting or paraphrasing it.

value is when line go up

You're totally misunderstanding the context of that statement. The problem of classifying an image as a certain animal is related to the problem of generating a synthetic picture of a certain animal. But classifying an image of as a certain animal is totally unrelated to generating a natural-language description of "information about how to distinguish different species". In any case, we know empirically that these LLM-generated descriptions are highly unreliable.

"[massive deficiency] isn't a flaw of the program because it's designed to have that deficiency"

it is a problem that it plagiarizes, how does saying "it's designed to plagiarize" help????

a brave editor spreads the truth

uh, or not

The Zizians believe in IQ, that animals are ethically equivalent to humans, that all people contain exactly two personality cores corresponding to the two hemispheres of their brains, that every personality core is either intrinsically good or intrinsically evil and less than 5% are good. They believe in violence as a form of mutually assured destruction: you should always escalate every conflict to the maximum in order to dissuade hypothetical agents from blackmailing you. And the stuff about Skynet.

I think to understand properly it should be recognized that while the personality-core stuff is out of left field, all of the other beliefs are pretty much just logical conclusions of mainstream rationalist thought. For instance Yudkowsky has to repeatedly explain that he's not in favor of violence (except when he's advocating for bombing data centers) precisely because it's really easy to reach that conclusion from what he's written. The Zizians mainly differ by reaching that logical conclusion and being willing to act on it.

rationalism is when i pull five numbers out of my ass and multiply them together

Hochman correctly deduces that R9PRESENTATIONALism originated in the 18th century, but fails to realize that the roots of this movement actually lie with the Bavarian Illuminati, a secret society which was supposedly suppressed by edict in 1784 but has in fact maintained a shadowy existence influencing politics up to the present day.

As we know, the critical age for a boy genius is somewhere from 11 (Harry Potter) to 15 (Paul Atreides), so the gene-enhanced baby ought to have a fair shot after a few months or so.

Why when we look into the stars do we not see a sign of life anywhere else? Has life not emerged yet or has it wiped itself out? With what? Nukes? AI? Synthetic viruses made with AI? Who knows…

entertaining this awful sci-fi schtick for a moment - if every civilization is wiped out by "superintelligent AI", how come you can't look through a telescope and see signs of artificial life? in this fantasy world shouldn't planets taken over by paperclip factories be even more conspicuous?

xcancel

im doing my part

Dan Luu's "A discussion of discussions on AI bias", about techbros trying to gaslight the rest of the world into thinking ML models don't have problems

Also your paper has to be truly irredeemable dogshit to get rejected from arxiv. Like you can post proofs of P=NP as long as it sounds kinda coherent. 2400 monthly rejections is absurd.

don't mention skull sizes for 5 minutes challenge

i read the title and was like damn we're dunking on game engines now?