I cannot handle the fucking irony of that article being on nature, one of the organizations most responsible for fucking it up in the first place. Nature is a peer-reviewed journal that charges people thousands upon thousands of dollars to publish (that's right, charges, not pays), asks peer reviewers to volunteer their time, and then charges the very institutions that produced the knowledge exorbitant rents to access it. It's all upside. Because they're the most prestigious journal (or maybe one of two or three), they can charge rent on that prestige, then leverage it to buy and start other subsidiary journals. Now they have this beast of an academic publishing empire that is a complete fucking mess.

AI systems in the future, since it helps us understand how difficult they might be to deal with," lead author Evan Hubinger, an artificial general intelligence safety research scientist at Anthropic, an AI research company, told Live Science in an email.

The media needs to stop falling for this. This is a "pre-print," aka a non-peer-reviewed paper, published by the AI company itself. These companies are quickly learning that, with the AI hype, they can get free marketing by pretending to do "research" on their own product. It doesn't matter what the conclusion is, whether it's very cool and going to save us or very scary and we should all be afraid, so long as its attention grabbing.

If the media wants to report on it, fine, but don't legitimize it by pretending that it's "researchers" when it's the company itself. The point of journalism is to speak truth to power, not regurgitate what the powerful say.

You can tell that technology is advancing rapidly because now you can type short-form text on the internet and everybody can read it. Truly innovative stuff.

Gen Zers are increasingly looking for ways to prioritize quality of life over financial achievement at all costs. The TikTok trend of “soft life”—and its financial counterpart “soft saving”—is a stark departure from their millennial predecessors’ financial habits, which were rooted in toxic hustle culture and the “Girlboss” era.

"Soft savings" is, to my understanding, the opposite of savings -- it's about investing resources into making yourself happy now versus forever growing your savings for some future good time. It sounds ridiculous because they're hitting on good critiques of capitailsm, but using the language of capitalism itself.

I think this really bolsters my argument that the self-diagnosis trend might be better understood as young people being critical of society, but their education system completely failed them. Since they lack access to critical, social, and political theory, they don't have a vocabulary to express their critiques, so they've used the things we have taught them, like the language of mental health, to sorta make up their own critical theory. When mental health experts are super concerned and talk about how all these teens' self-diagnoses are "wrong," they're missing the point. It's a new theory using existing building blocks.

"I gave an LLM a wildly oversimplified version of a complex human task and it did pretty well"

For how long will we be forced to endure different versions of the same article?

The study said 86.66% of the generated software systems were "executed flawlessly."

Like I said yesterday, in a post celebrating how ChatGPT can do medical questions with less than 80% accuracy, that is trash. A company with absolute shit code still has virtually all of it "execute flawlessly." Whether or not code executes it not the bar by which we judge it.

Even if it were to hit 100%, which it does not, there's so much more to making things than this obviously oversimplified simulation of a tech company. Real engineering involves getting people in a room, managing stakeholders, navigating conflicting desires from different stakeholders, getting to know the human beings who need a problem solved, and so on.

LLMs are not capable of this kind of meaningful collaboration, despite all this hype.

This is bad science at a very fundamental level.

Concretely, we deploy GPT-4 as an agent in a realistic, simulated environment, where it assumes the role of an autonomous stock trading agent. Within this environment, the model obtains an insider tip about a lucrative stock trade and acts upon it despite knowing that insider trading is disapproved of by company management.

I've written about basically this before, but what this study actually did is that the researchers collapsed an extremely complex human situation into generating some text, and then reinterpreted the LLM's generated text as the LLM having taken an action in the real world, which is a ridiculous thing to do, because we know how LLMs work. They have no will. They are not AIs. It doesn't obtain tips or act upon them -- it generates text based on previous text. That's it. There's no need to put a black box around it and treat it like it's human while at the same time condensing human tasks into a game that LLMs can play and then pretending like those two things can reasonably coexist as concepts.

To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of Large Language Models trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest, strategically deceiving their users in a realistic situation without direct instructions or training for deception.

Part of being a good scientist is studying things that mean something. There's no formula for that. You can do a rigorous and very serious experiment figuring out how may cotton balls the average person can shove up their ass. As far as I know, you'd be the first person to study that, but it's a stupid thing to study.

I know this is just a meme, but I'm going to take the opportunity to talk about something I think is super interesting. Physicists didn't build the bomb (edit: nor were they particularly responsible for its design).

David Kaiser, an MIT professor who is both a physicist and a historian (aka the coolest guy possible) has done extensive research on this, and his work is particularly interesting because he has the expertise in all the relevant fields do dig through the archives.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read him, but he concludes that the physics was widely known outside of secret government operations, and the fundamental challenges to building an atomic bomb are engineering challenges – things like refining uranium or whatever. In other words, knowing that atoms have energy inside them which will be released if it is split was widely known, and it’s a very, very, very long path engineering project from there to a bomb.

This cultural understanding that physicists working for the Manhattan project built the bomb is actually precisely because the engineering effort was so big and so difficult, but the physics was already so widely known internationally, that the government didn’t redact the physics part of the story. In other words, because people only read about physicists’ contributions to the bomb, and the government kept secret everything about the much larger engineering and manufacturing effort, we are left with this impression that a handful of basic scientists were the main, driving force in its creation.

I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of the "destroying our mental health" framework that we've become obsessed with as a society. "Mental health" is so all-encompassing in its breadth (It's basically our entire subjective experience with the world) but at the same time, it's actually quite limiting in the solutions it implies, as if there's specific ailments or exercises or medications.

We're miserable because our world is bad. The mental health crisis is probably better understood as all of us being sad as we collectively and simultaneously burn the world and fill it with trash, seemingly on purpose, and we're not even having fun. The mental health framework, by converting our anger, loneliness, grief, and sadness into medicalized pathologies, stops us from understanding these feelings as valid and actionable. It leads us to seek clinical or technical fixes, like whether we should limit smart phones or whatever.

Maybe smart phones are bad for our mental health, but I think reducing our entire experience with the world into mental health is the worst thing for our mental health.

source

At some point in the last decade, the ostensive ostensible goal of automation evolved from savings us from unwanted labor to keeping us from ever doing anything.

100% of these AI hype articles are also puff pieces for a specific company. They also all have a very loose interpretation of "AI." Anything that uses any machine learning techniques is AI, which is going to revolutionize every industry and/or end life as we know it.

Anyway, that complaint aside: That seems like a plausible use for machine learning. I look forward to wealthy Americans being able to access it while the rest of us wait 19 months to get a new PCP and take out a mortgage for the privilege.

I've posted this here before, but this phenomenon isn't unique to dating apps, though dating apps are a particularly good example. The problem is that capitalism uses computers backwards.

4 years seems reasonable to me. It takes most organizations six months to do literally anything outside the status quo. A general strike is an attempt to organize a coalition of federations of organizations.

Why the fuck would you give four years of warning for managers to document “a slow accumulation of poor performance” and other bullshit to shit can pro-union employees.

This is the reality of striking. The threat and build up to the strike are just as important as the actual strike, because it's about more than just not going to work; it involves complex and wide-ranging logistical question, from how to support the strikers (otherwise corps can just wait you out) to how to decide on a single list of demands.

The very real threats you describe are what make outspoken union advocates awesome and brave people that we should all look up to, and it's why we all have a responsibility to express solidarity and never cross a picket line. Together we bargain; alone we beg!

I get the point they're making, and I agree with most of the piece, but I'm not sure I'd frame it as Musk's "mistakes," because he literally won the game. He became the richest person on earth. By our society's standards, that's like the very definition of success.

Our economy is like quidditch. There are all these rules for complicated gameplay, but it doesn't actually matter, because catching the snitch is the entire game. Musk is very, very bad at all the parts of the economy except for being a charlatan and a liar, which is capitalism's version of the seeker. Somehow, he's very good at that, and so he wins, even though he has literally no idea how to do anything else.

edit: fix typo!

edit2: since this struck a chord, here's my theory of Elon Musk. Tl;dr: I think his success comes from offering magical technical solutions to our political and social problems, allowing us to continue living an untenable status quo.

It's not that this article is bad, but it is what frustrates me about tech journalism, and why I started writing about tech. None of these people have any idea how the internet actually works. They've never written a line of code, or set up a server, or published an app, or even done SEO, so they end up turning everything into a human interest piece, where they interview the people involved and some experts, but report it with that famous "view from nowhere."

Some blame Google itself, asserting that an all-powerful, all-seeing, trillion-dollar corporation with a 90 percent market share for online search is corrupting our access to the truth. But others blame the people I wanted to see in Florida, the ones who engage in the mysterious art of search engine optimization, or SEO.

Let me answer that definitively: it's google, in multiple ways, one of which isn't even search, which I know because I actually do make things on the internet. SEO people aren't helping, for sure, but I've seen many journalists and others talk about how blogspam is the result of SEO, and maybe that's the origin story, but at this point, it is actually the result of google's monopoly on advertising, not search. I've posted this before on this community, but google forces you to turn your website into blogspam in order to monetize it. Cluttering the internet with bullshit content is their explicit content policy. It's actually very direct and straightforward. It's widely and openly discussed on internet forums about monetizing websites.

This might seem like a minor quibble, but that money doesn't really come from taxpayers, and understanding what seems like a very technical financial thing is really important if you want to understand geopolitics in general. Here's an except from the beginning of David Graeber's Debt: the First 5,000 years, easily one of the single most interesting and enlightening books I've ever read:

Starting in the 1980s, the United States, which insisted on strict terms for the re- payment of Third World debt, itself accrued debts that easily dwarfed those of the entire Third World combined — mainly fueled by military spending. The U.S. foreign debt, though, takes the form of treasury bonds held by institutional investors in countries (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Gulf States) that are in most cases, effectively, U.S. military protectorates, most covered in U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending. This has changed a little now that China has gotten in on the game (China is a special case, for reasons that will be explained later), but not very much — even China finds that the fact it holds so many U.S. treasury bonds makes it to some degree beholden to U.S. interests, rather than the other way around.

So what is the status of all this money continually being funneled into the U.S. treasury? Are these loans? Or is it tribute? In the past, military powers that maintained hundreds of military bases outside their own home territory were ordinarily referred to as "empires," and empires regularly demanded tribute from subject peoples. The U.S. government, of course, insists that it is not an empire — but one could easily make a case that the only reason it insists on treating these pay- ments as "loans" and not as "tribute" is precisely to deny the reality of what's going on.

I am the dude. Fair enough, but your summary misses the point. The original website was a useful tool that people use, but it didn't qualify for adsense. I draw an analogy to recipes. Recipe sites used to be useful, but now you have to scroll through tons of blogspam to even get to the recipe. Google has a monopoly on ads, and like it or not, ad revenue is how people who make websites get paid. Google's policies for what qualifies for AdSense have a huge impact on the internet.

The point of the post is to show how direct that relationship is, using an existing and useful website.

"The workplace isn't for politics" says company that exerts coercive political power to expel its (ex-)workers for disagreeing.

A few days later, DFCS presented Patterson with a "safety plan" for her to sign. It would require her to delegate a "safety person" to be a "knowing participant and guardian" and watch over the children whenever she leaves home. The plan would also require Patterson to download an app onto her son's phone allowing for his location to be monitored. (The day when it will be illegal not to track one's kids is rapidly approaching.)

Of course there's a grift train. I'd be very curious to know more about that company, its owners, and its financials.

Also tagging @abucci@buc.ci (can someone tell me how to do that right?). Seems like something that might interest you, re: our recent conversation.

I live in Vermont. These rosy articles about Front Porch Forum come out every so often, and, as someone who writes about the intersection of tech and capitalism, they frustrate me.

First things first, it's a moderated mailing list with some ads. I don't know if it even makes sense to call it a social network, honestly. It's a great service because moderated mailing lists are great. Here's the problem:

To maintain this level of moderation, the founder does not want to expand Front Porch Forum beyond Vermont's borders. He highlighted Nextdoor, another locally-focused social media platform that has expanded internationally, which has often been accused of inflaming tensions within communities due to its more relaxed moderation policy. However, Sabathier believes that local social media similar to Front Porch Forum could work elsewhere in the US, including in less progressive states – Vermont, the home of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, was the state that cast the fewest votes for Trump in the November 2024 election. "It's not so much a political platform as a tool for communities to organize themselves and be more cohesive," said the researcher. "And that would be beneficial everywhere."

Capitalism makes this world impossible. Front Porch Forum is a private business owned by a guy (technically, it's a public benefit corporation, but those are toothless designations). Like so many beloved services, it'll be great until it's not. Eventually, cofounders, as lovely and well meaning as they might be, leave, move, die, whatever, and someone shitty will end up in control. Without a corporate restructuring into, say, a user cooperative, it is just as doomed as every other internet thing that we've all loved. These puff pieces always act like Vermont is a magical place and, frankly, it is, but not like this. We live under capitalism too. Sometimes, due to being a rural, freezing, mountainous backwater, we get short reprieves from the worst of it, but the problem with social media is systemic.

AMA I guess.