"may be AI slop" is a nonsensical statement, because if it's slop it doesn't matter who wrote it. Whether AI did the coding is not really relevant, although it is a more objective claim.

I live just outside fast growing suburbia. Lots of forest being converted to housing etc. Also a series of bad berry crops in the mountains. There are a lot of bears right in town, deer too. The problem with the bears is the townsfolk aren't bear aware. While direct interactions between bears and people are rare with an occasional swipe at a person, a bear did grab a toddler earlier this year. Parent drove the bear away and cops shot it.
The problem is bears getting habituated to humans, used to eating garbage, dropped fruit etc. A bear can go through a garage door easily, they're also good at opening car doors. Amazing the damage a bear accidentally locked in a car can do. Anyways lots of bears end up shot by conservation officers simply by being bears. It's the shits as generally the bears are more scared of people then we are of them and with a bit of work you can keep them from getting used to eating your garbage.
But yes, bear sightings are now common, even occasionally in the big city. It's kind of neat but really you can't trust them as they're wild animals

AI though, it really took a surprising and discontinuous leap in capability with Chat GPT 3, with application across soo many (most?) recognition and prediction tasks.

Including self-driving. What besides driving consumes so many hours and lives, and potentially remediable? I think it's probably the biggest AI application of the 21st century. Looking back the transition will seem faster.

Are those conversations and results kept in an extending prompt? How far back can your bot typically recall? Does the company charge for extra prompt (history) size?

This is been extremely well researched. Homework is essentially worthless. There's a very very small amount of homework you can give out each week, not each night each week, that has been shown to be moderately useful.

The real problem here is we have too many people who could be doing useful things but not profitable things.

The homework system and our school system is a sorting system. It's designed to pick out who is going to be useful to the Epstein class. But when you have too many people and the Epstein class just doesn't need that many for their purposes you start introducing shit like homework to decide who gets to be useful in society and who gets to spend the rest of their lives trying to avoid homelessness.

On the other hand it could just be all that avocado toast to those kids are eating. I mean screw experts in education whether they know anyway?

America in 2026 is best summed up with that old Isaac Asimov quote, the one about your ignorance being just as good as my knowledge...

Can you point at the place where you believe it says they had a permit to clear the forest?

They halted work promptly when notified the government was taking exception.

Anyway the whole story is almost devoid of the concept of legality, for whatever reason. Certain people are just sure it shouldn't have been allowed and want to see USA Big Tech heads roll.

Not 'no grades,' just grading of homework.

We shall see. I think not. Unless it turns out google had their legal ducks in a row, I think they will be paying an astouding, and record-setting, fine... maybe even if they did. For google, it's a terrible narrative at a very very bad time.

"in a few years, there'll be nothing human mathematicians can do that AI can't do better," Borcherds said. " Oh, that's sad. If history serves as a guide, it means we'll have to re-define math as "not intellience (TM)" and rationalize that AI is just brute-forcing it since DNN's are incapable of making novel generalizations (even though they do exactly that, constantly).

Yeah academic studies and surveys have a long and consistent record of failing to find any befit from IT in general:

- AI-generated answer (with direct quotes and cites)

1. Ng, Pan & Wilson (1998) Ã" Most businesses saw no revenue benefit ÃoeA majority (56%) indicated that their presence on the World Wide Web did not produce any noticeable change in their turnoverà The study also found that approximately 31% reported increased turnover, while 13% could not identify an effect. Citation: Ng, H.-I., Pan, Y. J., & Wilson, T. D. (1998). Business Use of the World Wide Web: A Report on Further Investigations. International Journal of Information Management, 18(5), 291Ã"314, p. 310. Information Research Full paper (PDF)

2. Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996) Ã" IT investments did not necessarily increase profitability ÃoeHowever, we do not find evidence that these benefits have resulted in supranormal business profitability.Ã The researchers examined IT investments at 370 large firms. They found productivity gains and benefits to consumers, but no evidence of above-normal profits attributable to IT investments. Citation: Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of Information Technology Value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 121Ã"142. Iecon Paper and abstract

3. Subramani & Walden (2001) Ã" Internet initiatives increased stock market valuations ÃoeThe results suggest that e-commerce initiatives do indeed lead to significant positive CARs for firms' shareholders.Ã Studying 251 e-commerce announcements from late 1998, the researchers found positive abnormal stock returns ranging from 4.9% to 23.4% across different subsamples. However, these were stock market gains reflecting expectations of future profitability, not demonstrated increases in operating profits. Citation: Subramani, M., & Walden, E. (2001). The Impact of E-Commerce Announcements on the Market Value of Firms. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 135Ã"154. PubsOnLine Full paper (PDF)

Bottom line The findings illustrate three different aspects of the late-1990s Internet economy:

- 1996: IT investments improved productivity without demonstrably generating above-normal corporate profits.
- 1998: Most surveyed businesses reported no measurable increase in revenue from their websites.
  - 1998 data, published 2001: Investors nevertheless rewarded companies announcing Internet initiatives with substantial increases in stock market valuation.

The important limitation: None of these studies established whether the average company earned a positive or negative net return on adopting the Internet. The 1998 survey comes closest to measuring actual business results specifically attributable to Internet adoption.

- end of AI
Studies in the social sciences invariably prove what is popular. Watch, you'll see, and they consistently lean luddite. They resent new capabilities changing the world more than their 'insights' ever do. New capabilities are what change the world, but why should technologists have all the power to determine the future? (As if innovation, innovation, and history worked that way at all - particularly since inventors (individuals or nations) usually have a slim window of exclusivity.

Yeah academic studies and surveys have a long and consistent record of failing to find any befit from IT in general: 1. Ng, Pan & Wilson (1998) â" Most businesses saw no revenue benefit âoeA majority (56%) indicated that their presence on the World Wide Web did not produce any noticeable change in their turnoverâ The study also found that approximately 31% reported increased turnover, while 13% could not identify an effect. Citation: Ng, H.-I., Pan, Y. J., & Wilson, T. D. (1998). Business Use of the World Wide Web: A Report on Further Investigations. International Journal of Information Management, 18(5), 291â"314, p. 310. Information Research Full paper (PDF) 2. Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996) â" IT investments did not necessarily increase profitability âoeHowever, we do not find evidence that these benefits have resulted in supranormal business profitability.â The researchers examined IT investments at 370 large firms. They found productivity gains and benefits to consumers, but no evidence of above-normal profits attributable to IT investments. Citation: Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of Information Technology Value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 121â"142. Iecon Paper and abstract 3. Subramani & Walden (2001) â" Internet initiatives increased stock market valuations âoeThe results suggest that e-commerce initiatives do indeed lead to significant positive CARs for firms' shareholders.â Studying 251 e-commerce announcements from late 1998, the researchers found positive abnormal stock returns ranging from 4.9% to 23.4% across different subsamples. However, these were stock market gains reflecting expectations of future profitability, not demonstrated increases in operating profits. Citation: Subramani, M., & Walden, E. (2001). The Impact of E-Commerce Announcements on the Market Value of Firms. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 135â"154. PubsOnLine Full paper (PDF) Bottom line The findings illustrate three different aspects of the late-1990s Internet economy: - 1996: IT investments improved productivity without demonstrably generating above-normal corporate profits. - 1998: Most surveyed businesses reported no measurable increase in revenue from their websites. - 1998 data, published 2001: Investors nevertheless rewarded companies announcing Internet initiatives with substantial increases in stock market valuation. The important limitation: None of these studies established whether the average company earned a positive or negative net return on adopting the Internet. The 1998 survey comes closest to measuring actual business results specifically attributable to Internet adoption. Studies in the social sciences invariably prove what is popular. Watch, you'll see, and they consistently lean luddite. They resent new capabilities changing the world more than their 'insights' ever do. New capabilities are what change the world, but why should technologists have all the power to determine the future? (As if innovation, innovation, and history worked that way at all - particularly since inventors (individuals or nations) usually have a slim window of exclusivity.

If AI works and it probably eventually will you can basically get rid of every white collar worker in the country except the epstein-class CEOs.

That is trillions of dollars in value. But even ignoring the raw economic value the control and power it gives you is worth any expense.

People keep asking if you don't have jobs who's going to buy their products?

What in Christ's name makes you think that they want to sell you a product? Think about that.

These are borderline gods who are completely dependent on your fickle whims as a consumer. Imagine a king or an emperor living like that. They couldn't it's why they lost to the merchant class.

This level of automation is the first step to putting us back to feudalism and the divine right of kings. It eliminates the connection between the Epstein class and you as a consumer and employee.

This is why Facebook is planning on more data center energy use then every single house in this country. They are sick and tired of you having civilization and having any say in Civilization. It belongs to them. They are Gods.

All of this is so far beyond your daily life that you can't even understand the words I'm saying. Almost nobody can. I do but that's because I'm neurotic. I can see all the bad stuff coming and because I'm already broken I can face it head on. Normal human beings can't get out of bed knowing the state of the world.

This doesn't make me tough by the way. It's the exact opposite it makes me a nervous wreck. Ignorance is bliss.

> Explain to the AI what it got wrong and have it fix it. You could fix it yourself but that will just confuse the AI.

Please elaborate. Confuse for what purpose or context?

If you need to cancel your model subscription for some reason, does all the bot's knowledge of your shop's practices and patterns go away?

If that's a problem, then in-house or fully open-source models may be safer even if not as good initially.

"Back in my day bots draw 8 fingers per hand, you spoiled whipper-snappers have it down to 6!"