Cringe

[firestar464]

[wjfox]

[firestar464]

[firestar464]

Warning: Wall of text but I think it's worth it








Mad respect to this one man for singlehandedly spending his time to bother arguing with these morons on Bluesky

Bro singlehandedly introducing the state of modern neuroscience to these people



Honorable mentions:

https://bsky.app/profile/surcomplicated ... x7jsq2bc2j

At this point the idea that ppl are secretly proving publishable mathematical theorems on their own, again and again and again, and then falsely attributing it to an AI, entirely against their own self-interest, is no different from claiming that the Moon Landing was fake.

https://bsky.app/profile/joseph-n-hall. ... w2pnqd2k2h

We can actually read minds
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ ... bi.1006633

[Yuli Ban]

Indeed
The state of AI discussion on BlueSky was so awful that it was a major reason why I just don't use it

I barely use social media at all, to be fair, and I'm sure I use Mastodon and Instagram even less

Like, I get hating AI slop. I get hating surveillance AI. I don't find "stop all AI research" kosher but I at least respect those who admit how far AI has come.

"AI is a glorified useless chatbot, it's all a scam by a bunch of billionaires" is a 2024 era take.


Honestly this is the biggest reason why the Buckmaster controversy was so fucking awful. OpenAI DID unironically have their model do something even Buckmaster noted was incredible. It was the crediting issue that was the problem, and the possibility OpenAI only thought to attack Navier-Stokes because they saw someone was close to it and wanted to do it first, and admittedly were scummy in trying to claim it was entirely AI proven.

But the narrative escaped within hours and now the normie opinion remains "OpenAI plagiarized the accomplishment." It also means a good number of people are going to disbelieve the news when OpenAI and others showcase other theorem solutions because "AI can't do that."

At some point, something is going to have to break.

[firestar464]

You are now in the narrative age, and in the narrative age the truth is sacrificed for the narrative. It doesn't
matter if it's on video, if you saw it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears. If it's against the narrative then it will be deemed false.

People believe without feeling the need to research whether or not they're true, that's the purpose of a narrative for you, and if someone contradicts The Narrative that has been etched into your mind, then the narrative protects itself by labeling the contradiction as fake.

"Sure, that is not how AI works, and you fundamentally misunderstand your own brain. Furthermore, AI can do dangerous things while failing at others; its capability profile is spiky, after all. But that doesn't matter anymore. We're in the Narrative Age, and the narrative is 'AI Is Soulless And Is Slop.'"

[wjfox]

[firestar464]

you can almost tell where a person stands on this by the words they use

sane people, as well as singularity cultists: AI, AGI, ASI, superintelligence
insane: super intelligence (note the space), generative AI, genAI (last 2 are used more by antiAI fanatics)

[firestar464]

Just what we need

[wjfox]

[wjfox]