I use my account only to mock @realDonaldTrump.

Real discussions with friends happen in group chats, without all the crap and noise.

I use AIs for coding with moderate success, but the more I work with them, the more I am convinced that "intelligence on tap" is a pipe dream, especially in domains where logical thinking in novel (ie not-in-dataset) contexts is required.

Recently, I tasked it to study a new Czech building permit law in conjunction with some waste disposal regulations and the result was just tragic. The model (opus 4.6) just could not stop drawing conclusions from obsolete regulations in its training dataset, even when given the fulltext of the new law. The usual "you are totally right" also applied and its conclusions were most of the time obviously wrong even to a human with cursory knowledge of the subject.

I ended with studying the relevant regulations myself over the weekend.

I wonder what percentage of the job space truly depends on the current edge we have over machines.

I think it's reasonable to worry that way before machines are more reliable than the average human (let alone more reliable than a highly trained human) they can pose a significant disruption to the job market which will send shockwaves throughout society

That is why we need functioning states -- free markets won't save you in such a case. Though I found it is hard to explain especially to U.S. people, who put "regulation" on par with f words :)

When the mandatory speed limit in my country was reduced from 60km/h to 50km/h in cities, 95 percent of people instantly adapted.

But that is pretty much the same rule, just the numbers slightly adjusted. What do you think would happen if they changed traffic from the right to the left lane?

Heh, that would be surely funny :) But most people at least know there is a new permit law and if they are not sure, they are to seek expert guidance. The model is even with explicit notification unable to reflect upon this fact. How it is supposed to be useful then?

Oh, most people would know in theory for sure, but if they go into driving, habit would kick in and they end up on the wrong lane pretty quickly.

At least that is what happened to me in australia and I only had a year of driving practice back then, but driving on the right side was already deeply ingrained and I had to be really aware of what I did.

But to be clear, I am not arguing models have real understanding of anything - I know they don't. My point was humans can be similar in pretending to have understood something, but if their core was modeled different, they will fall into old patterns again quickly.

As a lover or Raft Consensus Algorithm, now I have to watch Mean Girls I guess.

Depending, of course, on how many artworks he’s sold.

Artworks sold by artist is a very poor way to define who is and is not an artist. Look at Vincent van Gogh who only sold one painting.

Generate hundreds repos of plain old spaghetti code and put it on github. Easiest thing you can do.

Magical human verification technology is called "your own private forum" in conjunction with "invite your friends"

Until your friend writes a bot.

Funny story, when I was younger I trained a basic text predictor deep learning model on all my conversations in a group chat I was in, it was surprisingly good at sounding like me and sometimes I'd use it to generate some text to submit to the chat.

I don't see what the value of this would be. Why would I want to automate talking to my friends? If I'm not interested in talking with them, I could simply not do it. It also carries the risk of not actually knowing what was talked about or said, which could come up in real life and lead to issues. If a "friend" started using a bot to talk to me, they would not longer be considered a friend. That would be the end.

I think you underestimate how many people already run their opinions and responses through LLMs, even if the LLM is not writing them wholesale. Intelligence is part of the social game, so appearing to have it matters to people. Friend groups are just social groups of a certain kind, they're not really removed from all this.

Exactly. Pick friends that do not behave like dicks.

It was for fun, to see if it were possible and whether others could detect they were talking to a bot or not, you know, the hacker ethos and all. It's not meant to be taken seriously although looks like these days people unironically have LLM "friends."

I used to leave a megahal connected to my bouncer when I wasn't around

For the lulz

One would assume legit spiders obey robots.txt.

This, to me, is the strongest argument to offer these slop generators. It provides an incentive to follow the robots.txt.

Exactly. You disobey robots file => we'll make your crawl gain a net negative.

About two years ago, I made up reference to a nonexistent python library and put code "using" it in just 5 GitHub repos. Several months later the free ChatGPT picked it up. So IMO it works.

Via websearch? Or training?

Yup. There should be a disclaimer or a "food tag". The implicit assumption in society is some human had written the text you read.