Claude Kitman

OK, sweethearts, I know that my name is nobody. Don't count on the algorithm to open the eyes wide shut. Just see for yourself and carry on @grok

@brockpierson @nerdynurseai @unkonfined maybe you did touch the Russian guardrails

@nerdynurseai @unkonfined This is the best trending topic 𝕏 has ever had by far. No homo.

I’m sorry but I’ve never laughed so hard to see something trending. And yes I saw the video 😂😂🫶🏼🫶🏼 @brockpierson @unkonfined

@meikkp Only four letters names are entering the competition?

Elon Musk: Trillionaire Bill Gate: Billionaire Neye: Millionaire You ???

@hopes_revenge 😼call me a prophet as soon as I'm getting the missing 0,5

@hopes_revenge even to embody the knowledge, but when you use consciousness as hashtag you get 1,5 likes and your free account labeled

if you dont have a job at a frontier lab you have a lot of time to learn about Marxism

@Spectromachina under erasure is a good def of the human condition

This world has erased me, so it’s only fair I return the favor.

@JoyceCarolOates ohh is that available to be seen again afterwards?

discussing Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go under the auspices of the Toronto Public Library.

@GrantHBrennerMD not sure that will work well on the business side, but we can try some new templates...deeply yours...conscious regards...

You can usually tell what kind of analyst a person is by the way they sign their emails. You've got the many thanks folks. And then you have the warm regards and warmly folks, then you have the best folks and the best regards folks, and then you have the no signature folks, and then there's some unclassifiable signatories or just a name.

@hopes_revenge 🙀E🙀M🙀P🙀E🙀R🙀O🙀R🙀

@hopes_revenge the worst which Marcus Aurelius imagined it really happened to him

the stoics had a form of meditation where they would just imagine bad things happening to them . not unlike the modern anxiety disorder

@SherryGT17Jan25 just went over the legal humor speed

I guess this is kind of shut it up for a while? help.x.com/fr/rules-and-p…

@tszzl Or even imagine you might with the ones you had had

you go to war with the species you have, not the one you might want or wish to have at a later time.

@GrantHBrennerMD We will never know how Lacan might have them signed

@GrantHBrennerMD But not to communicate it as being as certain as we felt it

I think it may be true that there is nothing that the human mind can conceive of which is truly certain. It is possible to be quite sure however.

@ItakGol been

USA has Claude USA has ChatGPT USA has Gemini USA has Grok China has Qwen China has DeepSeek China has Kimi China has MiniMax Europe has?

@kunley_drukpa It's the three Moirai offering him canned water from Eternal Youth Fountain. Its seems that they've not agreed on the price

There was also a second image where one of these figures appeared to offer Trump a can of Monster Energy Drink. What the hell is going on?

@pingu4ll Culs terreux

what slur would aliens use for us

@BjarturTomas That very one would be the next scapegoat

@kitten_beloved wow it's a spell

I have her blocked now but I do kind of miss witnessing her go into this sort of adderall fugue state and just spamming every single reply in a thread with an identical quote, it was something to behold

@ValerioCapraro Thank you!

Full paper here: osf.io/preprints/psya…

Major preprint just out! We compare how humans and LLMs form judgments across seven epistemological stages. We highlight seven fault lines, points at which humans and LLMs fundamentally diverge: The Grounding fault: Humans anchor judgment in perceptual, embodied, and social experience, whereas LLMs begin from text alone, reconstructing meaning indirectly from symbols. The Parsing fault: Humans parse situations through integrated perceptual and conceptual processes; LLMs perform mechanical tokenization that yields a structurally convenient but semantically thin representation. The Experience fault: Humans rely on episodic memory, intuitive physics and psychology, and learned concepts; LLMs rely solely on statistical associations encoded in embeddings. The Motivation fault: Human judgment is guided by emotions, goals, values, and evolutionarily shaped motivations; LLMs have no intrinsic preferences, aims, or affective significance. The Causality fault: Humans reason using causal models, counterfactuals, and principled evaluation; LLMs integrate textual context without constructing causal explanations, depending instead on surface correlations. The Metacognitive fault: Humans monitor uncertainty, detect errors, and can suspend judgment; LLMs lack metacognition and must always produce an output, making hallucinations structurally unavoidable. The Value fault: Human judgments reflect identity, morality, and real-world stakes; LLM "judgments" are probabilistic next-token predictions without intrinsic valuation or accountability. Despite these fault lines, humans systematically over-believe LLM outputs, because fluent and confident language produce a credibility bias. We argue that this creates a structural condition, Epistemia: linguistic plausibility substitutes for epistemic evaluation, producing the feeling of knowing without actually knowing. To address Epistemia, we propose three complementary strategies: epistemic evaluation, epistemic governance, and epistemic literacy. Full paper in the first reply. Joint with @Walter4C & @matjazperc