Kind of Funny, but the same joke would apply to any human, so I doubt I'd have given it a mod point even if I ever got one to give.

However, I was recently asked about Claude, and I can cut-and-paste my reply without much effort. Might even be relevant?

Quick recap of my experiences in evaluating genAIs using LLMs. Claude and Perplexity gave me extremely negative reactions, but all of my AI interactions have been increasingly negative. So-called "support" chatbots are especially gawdawful. I used to go out of my way to try different ones. Sometimes I would deliberately use a pair of them (or more) on the same problem to see how much they agree and disagree. That started mostly with ChatGPT and DeepSeek, but recently I mostly don't go to those websites. My recent AI interactions have mostly been forced upon me, which means Gemini forcing its way into websearch queries, which has made the google's search results much less reliable. So that has been pushing me over towards Bing and then into Copilot, which is no better. Missing from my experience pool are Facebook and Amazon and the cesspool formerly known as Twitter (and its Grok) because I actively avoid such pools of pure pollution and evil.

Summary: They are terrible conversationalists, sycophants, and eager liars. Yet another triumph of perverse incentives.

NAK

Mod parent (and GP) funnier.

I wonder what percentage of the current users of Slashdot even knows about the original context of that joke. Apparently it's now a website for betting on elections?

Why does that even need to be quoted against the censor trolls? Perhaps some kind of personally targeted moderation abuse?

I bet not, but they could get free heating by circulating the cooling water to the houses.

So how'd you like to move to Alaska or Iceland? Or dare I say Greenland? But that trick never worked for Siberia.

NOT talking about Dawkins. I actually like his stuff and think he is substantially smarter than average.

But most people are of average intelligence or below. And yes, you could also argue the other side of the coin, add the average people to the ones above them and make an equally true statement that most people are of average intelligence or above. However if you are leading "most people" then it's much more likely you're leading the low side than the high side. How many examples do you want?

However the joke I was looking for was a kind of Turing test thing. The genAIs already sound smarter than most dumb people. Perhaps even smarter than most people. So if you start from the so-called smart perspective, then Claude probably looks pretty good in comparison to most of the people you've met and talked to.

If too many people are agreeing with me, then I must be wrong? (Slashdot used to seem like an exception?)

Maybe he died and someone hacked the account later? Nicer explanation than raging senility?

You got me to look at AC.

Unthanks.

Mostly agree with you and could cite several recent books to support the areas of agreement, but I still want to go for the joke. The root of the problem is perverse incentives, but I would argue the incentives rule and Zuck is just another fool trapped in a system that he thinks he built. (And I still think the most perverse incentives are over at YouTube and Amazon. Or maybe in the AI bubble somewhere? (We are so googled and zucked...))

Okay, I can't resist one citation for Chaos Monkeys because it is so sharply targeted at Facebook and Twitter. I should do a proper review, but summary is that the author struck me as a natural-born criminal, possibly even a potential Bond villain. Later on I leaned towards innovator and then back towards morally challenged. Exciting story but I can't guess where he's going to go with it in the last part...

I agree it was funny (and would even mod it funnier if I ever saw a mod point to give) but the quote needs an "oxymoronic" tag of some sort even before we get to your "sarcastic" tag.

Sounds like you play the horses? Or is your interest purely a mathematical one? In that case, maybe you work for the house?

I didn't go into the details of the deal because I admit I'm not that interested in more sordid stuff that is still under development. Usually takes a while for all the details to come out, which actually works well for books. Currently reading Chaos Monkeys which is largely about the financial shenanigans of Twitter and Facebook. But mostly the author is making himself look bad...

NAK

Has to be some kind of leveraged buyout where the insane valuation of the company they are buying based on the insane valuation of their own company is supposed to produce magic value and a more insane combined valuation from which they will "easily" pay off all the borrowed money that lubricated the rest of the deal. Usually has some vulture elements of splitting up and selling pieces that have insane projections of future sales.

Too bad such insanity isn't illegal.

My solution delusion would be pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation where such deals would basically become poisonous. The merger would result in higher taxes on the profits for the monopoly-building aspects, thus lowering the precious retaining earnings after taxes. Create a natural path to higher retained earnings by spawning competing child companies... "Can't get there from here."