I wasn't talking about LLMs, I was talking about AI systems. You are lost in old paradigms because you still have no idea how an AI model is constructed and think LLM and AI are two different abbreviations that mean the same thing.

... you are an incompetent moron unwilling to learn how to properly perform basic tasks in the real world.

Perhaps you might consider that they are all constantly lying, and so when you combine the fact that the lie doesn't map to the facts with the realization of who said it, one would be a fool not to believe that they are lying. Of course they are lying. They were trying to psyop the Amercan public by making it look like Iran bombed their own schoolchildren and weren't counting on getting caught by the discovery that a patriot missile was used to do the bombing. You have to be an idiot if you can't figure out what really happened, that they are lying, and why the are lying.

"It wasn't a completely foreseeable consequence of not double checking things."

Your post makes no sense, because you don't know the difference between a subject line and the body. Pro Tip: The body of your post does *not* begin in the subject line, but if you absolutely *must* do something so stupid then put ellipses after the words in the subject line and before the first words in the body.

There is a youtube video by "I Ask AI" where they ask 8 different AIs to pick the worst President in the last 100 years. Trump's Truth Social AI picks Trump, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that AI is much more intelligent than Trump.

" I expected him to stick "Trump" somewhere in the name"

He would have, but "Trump Intelligence" is already reserved and refers to the level of intelligence of an amoeba.

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.

AI technology practice isn't foundational. Critical thinking is. The closer AIs come to being able to do something that looks like them doing our thinking for us, the more capable we have to be at thinking without them. A human who can't outthink an AI adds nothing to an AI-human partnership.

This proposed school is a typical scheme by people who think because they have been educated, they understand how the education works. This is like thinking because you eat, you know how to cook. Project work in education is nothing new; it goes back well over a century. And in real life, you may get a STEM degree, but your real education in engineering comes from real life work. But that doesn't mean classes in calculus and physics don't do anything for you.

Or English classes, for that matter. Nobody doubts the value of project work in education, particularly *androgogy* -- the education of adults. But for *pedagogy* you have to establish foundational skills as the student matures intellectually and socially. Entering the high school years, a typical student has had *no* training in critical thinking skills. To develop critical thinking skills in an area, you need both general skills (epistemologicla literacy: research, location of orignial sources, dealing with conflicting evidence) and domain specific training in that area. In other words, *liberal arts* training is foundational in an AI-saturated world. "Liberal Arts" -- from *artes liberales*: literally the skills necessary to be a free person.

But I think these people have at least got the problem right: as AI drives the cost of elaborate projects down, we all have more projects in our future. Big, elaborate, faultlessly plausible-looking projects which may or may not have actual value.

Where they are completely wrong is the solution, which is to organize education around practicing using AI to make impressive projects. In a word of AI-enamored dunces this will put you at the head of a very sorry class of ignoramuses. The answer is to build fundamental cognitive and intellectual skils at every stage of a student's development. Project work is surely part of that, but it's just a technique, not a solution.

In a nutshell, the academy is training students to be the next step down the evolutionary scale from code monkeys. More like the pigeons B.F. Skinner trained in WW2 to peck at a screen, in an attempt to create a primitive guided missile without computers. They want to create "main characters"; and they'll probably create a few. There are always a few natural autodidacts in any moderately large group. But what they are set up is to produce a bunch of fragile, economically privileged narcissists trained to cover their lack of education with impressive-looking AI slop.

Add to that the consideration that a *lot* of humans can't even figure out that Trump is dangerous and many of those humans will be interacting with AI systems. I can already 100% guarantee that AI is an amplifier of human stupidity, and the question is not "will it be involved in the downfall of humanity", but merely "how long until that happens." People think that in order for AI to "kill us all" they have to do it on their own, or have intent to do so. Just as "guns don't kill people, people kill people" so too can it be said that "AI won't kill humanity. People will kill humanity."

You don't seem to understand that, while it is true that this mistake was caught by humans, there are currently systems with less human interaction and things are moving in the direction of taking humans out of the loop entirely.

"The question is ultimately if you would have been better served with doing your own investigation rather than relying on AI, did you retain the knowledge, and was the information complete/accurate."

no,yes, and mostly, respectively. You are lost in a broken paradigm where you think AI is some kind of assisted search technology. With frontier models you can have intelligent conversations, and they are pretty much always more beneficial than talking to most people. They provide links to sources, but they go far beyond being mere sources of information. I have to assume you have either never used, or never actually learned to properly use, AI.

Clearly those ducks have seen more video footage of Trump from sources other than Fox "News" than a large segment of the voters have.

I guess you didn't get the memo, but Trump explicitly stated that he doesn't think about *you* at all either. As far as "getting things done" you can't possibly be so stupid as to believe that unless you mean "undermines the country and destroys any chance of the country avoiding complete disaster."

Yes, limited local AI models certainly are going to be a standard feature in the future.

I run both local and cloud AI. There is still a huge difference, because my local machine has to use smaller and quantized models. It takes considerably longer for lower quality results.

Who says the number stickers have to correlate with actual beliefs?