Worst person you know just made a great point type shit

TFG: Everything I don’t like is rent seeking. Checkmate, anyone ideologically to the left of me

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/imf-flags-risks-global-economy-ai-market-correction-war-debt-2026-10-13/

IMF bearish on AI.

Anyway here’s my character, South Korean AI booster Bob Vylan: “Death, death to the IMF!”

futarchy

Once upon a time it would take just one piece of art and a hashtag to completely derail the meaning of this

The dinosaurs are back and are out to get us? fuck, I thought things were bad enough

probably worth knowing that Waze is a bit sus, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/waze-israel-terms-of-service/

surely THIS will solve alignment

nah it’s better thematically/narratively if you explore it yourself

not that it makes any real difference but I have been seeing “Galfoy”. Knowing that “foid” has increased in usage is a bummer tho

This is wrong in a couple different ways, lol

Friend sent me this steaming turd.

What Would You Do If Your Employer Could Destroy the World? Exit interviews with defectors from OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepMind. By Clara Collier and Angela Chen

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-researchers-quit-openai-anthropic.html

https://archive.li/5uwn8

Feature some of our regular friends, like our new friend, Jacob Coxon, and our very good friend Kokotajlo

Note that this was written by asterisk mag (peep the authors) as a collab.

It’s funny because the only way to be above tropes is to be incoherent and meaningless, and yud is kind of that

I haven’t had a 15 minute refractory period since being a teenager, is that anything

NYT: Google Takes the A.I. Data Center Race to Outer Space

https://archive.li/BGFnP

Google’s Project Suncatcher named after how it’s up to the sun to catch all our space junk

clearly they meant RSI as in repetitive strain injury, from jerking each other off so much

Using the fun button in the backdoor, saw it on an episode of SVU* (edit: it may have been CSI)

Epistatus: I skimmed the first 20 pages of the paper. I have not watched the WoW documentary.

Yeah, the paper doesn’t seem to do a good job at justifying introducing system 3. They should have at least looked at why you couldn’t model this as something like:

1. Person encounters a situation requiring thought
2. System 1 triggers System 2
3. System 2 offloads cognition to some black box
4. The result is absorbed and successfully addresses the situation
5. A- System 1 is rewarded and begins adding use of the black box to its repertoire, skipping System 2

or

B- System 2 absorbs the result and begins trusting the black box more, perhaps deferring to its result before any internal cognition

Both of these things I pulled outta my ass can explain deskilling, and a situation like 5a) might explain capitulating to AI under pressure. So I’m not feeling like System 3 is necessary here.

That all being said, it’s not like the paper gets to decide how the rest of the world chooses to use “cognitive surrender”.

My bad, it was late when I posted and I only searched for surrender.

This particular exchange is KenM coded

Well, I don’t really have any skin in this game, so either term works well enough for me.

That being said, if the phrase is coming from that Wharton paper, note that it appears they are trying to extend the “Thinking Fast and Slow” model of Systems 1 and 2 to include a System 3. So take that as you will. OFC it goes without saying that this model is beloved by our dear, dear, ever-increasingly incorrect friends