Sorry, you seem to think your link invalidates the point. It does not, but you're welcome to make up a strawman and answer it. I would dress up as a batman to keep you honest, but in my culture we don't know what that is. Thanks for playing, though.

Sometimes, social scientists who are under pressure to publish, anything, no matter what, to increase their publication count, will propose stupid experiments, that don't cost much to do, do not measure any intrinsic behaviour of humanity, and can be modified trivially to generate alternative papers. The trick is to brainstorm and try out a lot of these, until the p-value finally fits.

Presumably, a super intelligence has ways of identifying the time that transcend the merely intelligent idea you've put forth?

Not good enough. The stopped clock doesn't require electricity to idle:)

It's far from stupid to discuss. It's what you pay OpenAI and Anthropic and Microsoft for. It's why they have the valuations. If you claim the LLMs are subhuman tools then the bubble bursts. And your little 401k goes with it. For someone defending LLMs you appear to have a very contradictory understanding of the industry.

Nah, waste of time. I've often thought that these graveyards are valuable real-estate and should be sold off to developers. The people buried there are dead, get over it.

What do humans have to do with super human intelligences? Are you saying that if humans are bad at telling the time, then super human intelligences should be excused for being worse than humans at that task? Did you miss the bit about "super"? It's from Latin, it means "above", "over", "beyond", "better".

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! Are you saying LLMs are less intelligent than a stopped clock?

I think he's talking about Brian Thompson?

All of Weather Underground, AccuWeather and Weather Channel are shit on a stick. Every time I upgrade my phone I get one of those pre-installed and I promptly remove it. The BOM app is miles more accurate and useful, not even close.

Although this is a small first step, long overdue, it augers the beginning of the end of total immunity for social media conglomerates.

augurs. Verb. What an augur does (an ancient fortune teller).

augers. Plural. From auger (an ancient drilling tool used in agriculture).

There's no actual way to know if a game was made with AI or not.

Just look for the copied artwork. It's pretty simple, really.

You're conflating several things, imho, which are important to note.

Firstly, not everyone is entitled to voice their experiences publicly, it depends on where one lives, and what legal precedents there are. For the avoidance of any doubt, even in a country such as the USA there are limits to voicing one's experiences (such as when a judge issues a gag order).

Secondly, fake experiences are extremely likely, and in fact, have been common for at least one generation (20 years) on the Internet. Businesses use fake reviews to hurt competitors all the time. Businesses also use fake reviews to mislead customers. Individuals with an axe to grind do it all the time, too.

Historically speaking, the original justification by Google and Facebook for requiring real identities in the late 2000s was precisely as a silver bullet proposal to fight anonymous fake reviews, which were causing real damage to real businesses and people.

Thirdly, user reviews are simply a bad idea. The system suffers from all sorts of statistical biases, including survivorship bias, self selection bias, payola, etc.

The idea itself of a review, ie a critical account from personal experience by someone you trust, is actually sound.

The Internet companies however do not offer sound reviews, they offer accounts that may or may not be critical from experiences that may or may not be made up by people whose identity may or may not be made up and whose motives you may or may not want to trust. That is imho an accurate description of user reviews. Allowing deliberate anonymity only compounds the problems.

Go to Amazon, buy a paperback or hardback, published before 2020. It will take a century until the English language evolves enough that the words written in 2015 are incomprehensible. Don't worry, we'll all be long dead by then!

You're anthropomorphizing "they". The actual bad actors are the billionaires owning the AI companies. Get rid of them, and you'll go a long way towards chilling the problem.