I use every style imaginable, including photos, in my tests. Same result every time.

One time I even did it with a Calvin and Hobbes comic, pretending than an AI made it. Responses included things like "The illustration also looks like shit and barely makes sense. Hope that helps.", "God damn this sucks so bad", "This also fucking sucks", and "The only punchline here is casual, pointless cruelty. if you think this is funny then you're literally a psychopath."

LLMs are not "statistical models" (randomness only even comes into play in the final conversion from latent space to token space because latent space is high dimensional, token space is low dimension, you need a rounding mechanism, and a "noisy" rounding mechanism works best; what you're thinking of, by contrast, is Markov models). And you cannot just "get lucky and randomly solve an unsolved math problem"; that's not how any of this works.

Also, it's silly that people are acting like "all problems but this one were already in the literature". AI has solved a whole slew on Erdos problems, and only a fraction had anything to do with existing literature.

And even in "existing literature" examples, it's not "nobody ever thought to search before" as if all mathematicians are morons, or that mathematicians adore putting out Erdos problem solutions without claiming them, It's that nobody had ever thought to apply an obscure technique from a given piece of literature to said Erdos problem.

The simple fact is, AI has gotten much better at solving unsolved math problems than humans are. It's simply another field that it's taking over, the same way it has been taking over programming. One can debate how much is "clever insight" vs. "just chugging away at possibilities until it hits on ways to advance toward the goal", but ultimately, that's a distraction from the fact that: it's getting really good at solving math problems that humans have spent decades on without success.

Clearly that wasn't spam, because his name is nospam007.

Forced? You think reviewers of writing contests are captives, imprisoned by mad scientists and forced to read story after story, like some sort of literary equivalent of the backstory to MST3K?

It is no more "theft" than you are.

I'll never get over how many people I watch online complain about how they'll never use AI because "it's theft", and then post photoshops they made with pictures they don't own, when that's not what the AI is doing.

I'll never get over how many artists I've seen complain about how AI is theft, and then paint something with "inspiration images" sitting in front of them while they paint, with their painting effectively being a blended composite of their inspiration images - when that's not what the AI is doing.

I'll never get over how many writers I've seen write the exact same derivative stuff that they also read, down to the same phrasings at times, just packaged in a new plot with new characters, and yeah, same story.

Even a person who isn't *directly* copying things that they're literally looking at is still the sum of their experiences. And it's rather hard to say that the breadth of human experience is broader than an LLM (whose "breadth of experiences" is "the whole world's outputs"), outside of the things that relate directly to having a body in a way which a blind / deaf / quadraplegic / whatnot person wouldn't grasp well.

And on that latter note, most people underestimate how well e.g. the congenitally blind actually grasp colours and the like. They're far better at reasoning about colours - similar to the sighted - than they are at knowing what colours things are. One study I read for example asked about polar bear fur. A good fraction of the congenitally blind subjects answered that they didn't know what colour it was. When asked to guess, about half of them answered that it was white so that it could blend into the snow, while the other half wrongly guessed black, but did so on the assumption that they'd want to soak up light to help stay warm. And actually in reality, both are true - to an outside observer, the exterior scattering of visible light without pigment makes them look white, but it's also designed to trap non-visible light up against black skin to absorb it for warmth. A sighted person, just seeing "white fur" and not knowing the latter property, might not have thought to even consider that.

To a LLM, our bodily experiences are akin to a blind person asked about colour: only knowing for sure things that they've learned about them directly, but still quite adept at reasoning about them.

You understand that this was not a sales contest, right?

What should be telling is that people started criticizing the metaphors only after concerns were raised that it was AI.

I do this experiment all the time (as it amuses me endlessly): when some people are hating on AI, I post some masterpiece panting or award-winning photo, suggest it's AI, and then watch them all explain why it's terrible, obviously-flawed, soulless crap. Sometimes I also do the reverse and post an AI image by comparison, say I prefer the "AI image" (actually real) to the "real image" (actually AI), and watch them go on about how the "real" (actually AI) image is so much better and shows so much more human creativity and emotion that AI could never have.

One person did this recently (posted a real Monet, said it was AI) and hundreds of such replies. The funniest part however was that someone took all their replies about the real Monet and fed them (along with the real Monet) into an AI model and had it improve the real Monet to match their criticisms ;)

The problem here isn't scams and grift. It's that by growing the number of bets by orders of magnitude, you grow the number of insiders with insider info by orders of magnitude. Which creates perverse incentives across your entire economy for people to profit off of their status, while simultaneously making it much harder to do so.

Say there's a bet on whether Russia will take the village of Mala Tokmachka by a certain date. Well, now every Russian commander on that front has an incentive to have family members / friends bet against it and then delay / undercut their ability to wage incentives, while every soldier also has the incentive to do so and then do everything they can to spoil the offensive.

Or say the US is planning a major offensive in Iran, and various insiders are betting *on* an imminent attack. Well, Iran can feed Polymarket data into their intel assessments as one factor to help determine when the US will invade in order to maximize their readiness. OR, Iranian intel services could track down US officials / military officers who are making these bets based on insider info and blackmail them in order to get them to cooperate.

Every single aspect of society that gets bet on gets subtly undercut by the existence of these bets. It's one thing to have bets be placed on sports, an action that by definition is entertainment, something that doesn't actually matter. But it's an entirely different thing to have bets on virtually everything in our world. It's already been a problem with stock trading, but sites like Polymarket make it so, so much worse.

JUDGE: The jury has sent a question and the answer is no, the death penalty is not "available for both sides" please return to the jury room and limit your consideration to civil damages.

JUDGE: No, a “light maiming” is also not acceptable, nor is “getting medieval on their asses.” Please constrain yourself to statutes approved by this court.

JUDGE: A further follow-up question from the jury, and no we cannot 'dunk them in a lake and let God decide, like they used to do with witches'. That has not been considered a valid means of determining guilt for several centuries at least.

JUDGE: The jury has sent another question and the answer, again, is no. "Excommunicado" is not real - that's only a thing in the John Wick universe. Civil penalties DO NOT encompass revoking all protections under the law for Mr Altman and Mr Musk.

JUDGE: Court reporter, please note that the jury's latest request, quote, can we let them hang by their thumbs for a few hours, end quote, is also denied.

Fortunately, that's highly unlikely. There has never been a confirmed case of airborne transmission between humans. Most transmission is due to insufficient and unsanitary health care facilities, due to lack of funds.

I had already received three Pfizer shots when I came down with the virus (confirmed, with a test that came up positive in less than a minute). However, I am absolutely convinced that the severity of my case was so minimal (sleeping under a blanket on the couch in my clothes for 3-4 days) because of the enhanced response of my immune system, due to the vaccine.

Correct. It's like a governor declaring a state of emergency ... for a flood that only affects one region of their state. These alerts are a call to action for officials, not the general public.

AI, huh? And here I thought the, uh, government might seize the opportunity to declare these companies illegal gambling that's rife with insider trading and other criminality, and shut them down.

The problem is always the relative ease of modern travel. This outbreak would be a regional issue if there were no jet planes.

So far, the outbreak is reasonably confined. But it might not stay that way. Raising that alarm is one of the key functions of the WHO.