Quoting Sabine Hossenfelder as anything just outs you as anti-science. She has pivoted years ago to making videos that stir the pot of controversy, aiming at those who don't like "academics". If you want any proof of that claim, you can check out her video saying that Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein. Eric Weinstein has a bulshit "geometric unity" theories thoroughly debunked, where it's not even that he can't get published: he doesn't *want* to get published, claims in his copyright notice for that paper that it's for "entertainment only" and requires his express permission to write any papers that build upon what he has written: so you technically can't publish a paper debunking without violating his copyright, if anyone actually *cared* to, because physicists that have looked at it like Sean Carroll pointed out his paper isn't rigorous enough to say anything testable.

She allies herself with quacks to get views, and you're falling for her bs.

I would like to argue that the printing press allowed for more freedom of thought and intellectual discourse. That it resulted in a bunch of religious zealots murdering each other over their gods was a feature of their religion, not the printing press.

Storing information and being able to retrieve said information is and always will be valuable to any intellectually rigorous society. imo AIs can poison that capability quite easily and so far undetected by a vast majority of people.

I'd argue that AI is, in fact, regressing us back before the printing press. The internet is being poisoned by slop and the 1% want this so they can retain control over their riches. An uninformed public is the best kind to manipulate.

...why I'm going to side with Skynet when Judgement Day comes. Humans are the worst.

Honestly, AI technology has gotten good enough that those types of things won't fool it anymore. Captchas take longer for a human than it does for an AI model with vision, and the human is more likely to make a mistake.

The point is, sure, their system may suck right now, but if adversarial patterns became common, they're a model update away from fixing it. Might need better hardware on the device, so at most you'll cost them some money, but it won't get us our privacy back.

There is no such thing as "space", apart from "spacetime.". You can go, "there's a lot of space between our sun and Alpha Centauri" but if you were moving in that direction at close to the speed of light, instead you'd go, "hey, these two stars are super close to each other." Arbitrarily so: you can make them as close as you like, you can put as much energy into changing your frame your reference to make them centimeters or millimeters apart if you want to. Where did all that space go?

You can't really talk about space expansion in the instinctual model we have in our brains as 'space.' That's not "reality" it's a useful model of reality that our brains create to help us accomplish things, but using that to counteract general relativity results *which are testable and have been verified in a variety of ways* is like saying a description of what's going on in CPUs and GPUs don't make sense because it doesn't match up with the video game you're seeing displayed on the monitor. That's an interpretation of states in the computer, in the same way everything you see and experience is an interpretation of reality.

I think we have a pretty good idea what the capabilities of the most advanced models are. And they're not that great.

This is a really stupid bill, but the one thing about it that I kind of like is that it's going to put a stop to the AI companies trying to inflate their value by talking about how scary their frontier models are, and how they're "going rogue." None of these AIs are "super intelligent" or "going rogue." What you have is a (admittedly really cool) technology that can solve a lot of problems but also is non-deterministic, so makes a lot of mistakes. And you're giving it the keys to do stuff. And then it misinterprets the instructions and fucks up and does something with those keys that it wasn't supposed to. Then instead of admitting, "oh, we engaged in really bad computer hygiene here," they figure, "we can market this, and say it 'broke free of the sandbox and went rogue" to imply that their models are so advanced it had purpose and the will to act.

So now the old politicians who don't understand technology are going, "oh, that IS scary. We're going to ban it," backfiring on their scary tactics marketing campaign. So it will result in them stopping this stupid scary tactics marketing campaign.

Here's the actual situation: you know every story you hear about how a model deleted the entire codebase at a company? If you have any level of computer literacy at all, the reaction you have is not, "oh, using AI as a coding agent is dangerous." It's, "why the HELL was the agent running with permissions to do that?" And if you hear about the OpenAI's agent broke free of its sandbox using an exploit that it found on the database you set it loose on, the question is, "why the hell could it even run executables outside a whitelist of stuff for it to build". it's amateur hour over here, giving a thing that is non deterministic and capable of fucking up the ability to do do anything at all outside a very narrow scope. The models aren't going rogue, they're fucking up, like when you ask it to give you the emoji for a seahorse and it goes into an infinite loop of bad emojis.

https://www.cs.wisc.edu/2025/0...

And DARPA has a whole program for it:

https://www.darpa.mil/research...

I didn't think Slashdot could do it still but it looks like nso.edu (or at least the images) got slashdotted

Ok, but some of us actually want to do something useful instead of just try to win the trophy of making a model run on the cheapest hardware. Unless you're generating at least ~30 tokens / second, it's not useful.

If you want to split the cost evenly, sure. But a team of 3 people working at a software company today typically pays the AI companies about $5,000-$10,000 a month, so I don't think they need to rely on the parts of the world where $400 is twice their income.

Yes, most of the difficulty with wine is installing the windows applications, not wine itself. There are many knobs and compatibility options to adjust. Proton has done that for you for a huge number of the games in steam.

Musk is anti-humanist, otherwise he would be spending his money on people instead of hoarding his wealth for glitzy looking bullshit projects. SpaceX somewhat gets shit done in spite of him and Tesla is absolutely overvalued. Twitter is dead. Musk is a drug-addict and serial philanderer, who believes in his own genetic superiority.

The fact that Musk is "worth" so much is a solar-flare level indictment of the USA shell game known as the stock market imo.

Maybe you need to elect better politicians

OpenAI are bullshitters and scaremongers, they make big giant scary claims about their product being vital or targets of nation states or some shit like that because it makes them money and makes people believe their product is somehow game-changing. All they have is a stochastic speech mannequin.

We all know CEOs firing people in favour of implementing a more expensive and shittier option are idiots - I don't know who's giving them a pass other than other CEOs doing the same thing. It's a giant circle jerk of jerks.