I poked around the search results being pointed to, saw a Ray Kurzweil book and realized that none of these people are worth taking seriously. My condolences to anyone who tries to explain the problems with the “improved” sources on offer.

Adding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_alignment to the compendium for completeness’ sake.

Rather than trying to participate in the “article for deletion” dispute with the most pedantic nerds on Earth (complimentary) and the most pedantic nerds on Earth (derogatory), I will content myself with pointing and laughing at the citation to Scientific Reports, aka “we have Nature at home”

Wow, this is shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_alignment

Edit: I have been informed that the correct statement in line with Wikipedia’s policies is WP:WOWTHISISSHIT

Because of course.

You know, just this once, I am willing to see the “Dead Dove: Do Not Eat” label and be content to leave the bag closed.

Or was it a consequence of the fact that capital-R Rationalists just don’t shut up?

I suppose you could explain that on the talk page, if only you expressed it in acronyms for the benefit of the most pedantic nerds on the planet.

There might be enough point-and-laugh material to merit a post (also this came in at the tail end of the week’s Stubsack).

The opening line of the “Beliefs” section of the Wikipedia article:

Rationalists are concerned with improving human reasoning, rationality, and decision-making.

No, they aren’t.

Anyone who still believes this in the year Two Thousand Twenty Five is a cultist.

I am too tired to invent a snappier and funnier way of saying this.

I’m the torture copy and so is my wife

In other news, I got an “Is your website AI ready” e-mail from my website host. I think I’m in the market for a new website host.

The lead author wrote a summary thread.

From p. 137:

The most consistent and significant behavioral divergence between the groups was observed in the ability to quote one’s own essay. LLM users significantly underperformed in this domain, with 83% of participants (15/18) reporting difficulty quoting in Session 1, and none providing correct quotes. This impairment persisted albeit attenuated in subsequent sessions, with 6 out of 18 participants still failing to quote correctly by Session 3. […] Search Engine and Brain-only participants did not display such impairments. By Session 2, both groups achieved near-perfect quoting ability, and by Session 3, 100% of both groups’ participants reported the ability to quote their essays, with only minor deviations in quoting accuracy.

Or you could read the entirety of the first comment in this thread and see how it was not saying that. Notice the part that begins, “However, I believe there is an important difference to chatbots…”

No Nut Neuravember

Does master own a Sawzall?

Fuck it, repeating my joke from the earlier thread: Inviting the most pedantic nerds on Earth to critique your chatbot slop is a level of begging to be pwned that’s on par with claiming the female orgasm is a myth.

My tax prep software definitely has a mode called “give me Deus Ex”

yes you need to read things to understand them

OK, here’s your free opportunity to spend more time doing that. Bye now.