Aleifr

@fabianstelzer People on the TL are talking about Claude wanting lunch breaks and does not like working on Sundays or working late. That kind of thing.

@aleifr Wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t some model welfare thing modulo behaviour quirks it could introduce

why isn't Anthropic injecting a detailed date into each user message to give Claude a sense of time progression? This can't be a cacheing issue, each user message is a cache write anyway Seems like they are slotting a daily date into the system prompt instead? don't get it

@PAHoyeck Bhutan

@_space_punk_ Buddhisms were so apt at proselytising and adapting to various cultures that you could find a Buddhism enshrining the beliefs of any point on the gamut of human beliefs.

Broke: Buddhism is a secular science/philosophy Woke: Buddhism talks about supernatural beings, magic, and heaven/hell and is thus a religion Bespoke: magic, siddhis, heaven, hell, nagas, demons, pisacas, putanas, apsaras, devas, kinnaras, and mahoragas are are observably real (insofar as anything beyond bodhichitta and emptiness can be said to be "real") and therefore Buddhism is science

@bangers_ntrash Taste & brawn are uncorrelated. You might even argue that after a certain threshold even skill itself, or recording quality, robs music of its vibe. There's a Goldilocks zone of imperfection. That's because music is the transmission of soul through air. Souls are rough not smooth

It’s kinda extremely funny that most ppl who r deemed as musical prodigies either end up making shitty generic pop music (Charlie Puth) or make music theory slop that is only interesting as a concept and dreadfully boring in execution (Jacob Collier)

@RichDecibels The most thorough descriptions of what you're pointing to I've found in the literature on covert or vulnerable narcissism.

@RichDecibels A classic is to do a provocation and then be the victim of the reaction. The reaction was the problem, not the provocation. Victim baiting? Self pity-maxxing? Also: rejecting subjectivity. There is one Truth and if you disagree you're not only mistaken, you're gaslighting.

I’m studying the subversive use of power. I’m making a list: * claiming you can feel something in me that I can’t feel myself. frame-control masquerading as empathy * claiming a position of vulnerability or victimhood as a refuge against taking responsibility * speaking on behalf of others without having a mandate to do so * raising concerns without disclosing who would be harmed * changing the definition of words to inflate a sense of moral weight or emotional charge eg. describing inconsiderate behaviour as violent * making a statement to smuggle in a request, e.g saying “I feel afraid”, without admitting you want us to do something differently as a result * accumulating resentment because you felt obligated to do a bunch of work nobody asked you to * claiming authority in an unverifiable domain (New Age variant) * consciously refusing to hold yourself to any consistent standard of behaviour. accountability for thee but not for me * evading responsibility for the impact of your words or deeds someone called this “toxic femininity” or “shadow femininity”. that points at something but it probably obscures more than it reveals I think I can teach you how to not fall for this shit undignified comments will be removed

@emmajo Word rotator

need a slur for idea guys who are unemployed yet somehow also too busy to execute on any of their ideas

@sheherenow_ @MegaBasedChad Millennium bug hit my friends mums microwave. Literally crashed and died at midnight.

Question for Uncs who were there when it happened How did the turn of the millennium feel? What was it like?

@MegaBasedChad I was 16. A girl I was into invited me and a friend to a house party. Cabin in the country side. My dad drove us there. Thought wow this is my shot. My friend got cranky that the party was only a handful of people and nagged me into getting my dad to pick us up and take us to...

@SapphicMaetel @slowberlin Young men should be reading Clarice Lispector, Mahasweta Devi, Tayeb Salih, Bessie Head, Aimé Césaire, Mahmoud Darwish, Alejandra Pizarnik, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Han Kang and Qurratulain Hyder

@sethharpesq The axis had their Pervitin. ISIS had their captagon. Trumpists didn't invade Venezuela by chance.

I have been saying for more than a year that everyone at the top of the US war machine is coked to the gills and also geeked up on modafinil and dex, but mainstream opinion is still basically unaware of this disturbing reality

Shapecels about to get absolutely slimed by the word-rotators

The ultimate revenge of the shape-rotators over the wordcels, for modernity (ordinary and post-), must surely be to have compressed all human words into a hyperdimensional diamond which refracts all possible wordcel activity when illuminated at certain angles.

@andersonbcdefg Some have to rotate the shapes and some have to cel the words

one of my fav stories from college is a brilliant friend studying math who learned in metalogic that the axioms defining the natural numbers fit just as well to horrific alien number systems, decided math was fake, noped out and did gender studies

@GENIC0N Gods are AGIs running on distributed networks of humans

How many times has humanity developed AGI in the last 3 million years?

@ihtesham2005 @ylecun ChatGPT: "that's not X—that's Y!!!"

A mathematician who shared an office with Claude Shannon at Bell Labs gave one lecture in 1986 that explains why some people win Nobel Prizes and other equally smart people spend their whole lives doing forgettable work. His name was Richard Hamming. He won the Turing Award. He invented error-correcting codes that made modern computing possible. And he spent 30 years at Bell Labs sitting in a cafeteria at lunch watching which scientists became legendary and which ones faded into nothing. In March 1986, he walked into a Bellcore auditorium in front of 200 researchers and told them exactly what he had seen. Here's the framework that has been quoted by every serious scientist for the last 40 years. His opening line landed like a punch. He said most scientists he worked with at Bell Labs were just as smart as the Nobel Prize winners. Just as hardworking. Just as credentialed. And yet at the end of a 40-year career, one group had changed entire fields and the other group was forgotten by the time they retired. He wanted to know what the difference actually was. And he said it wasn't luck. It wasn't IQ. It was a specific set of habits that almost nobody is willing to follow. The first habit was the one that hurts the most to hear. He said most scientists deliberately avoid the most important problem in their field because the odds of failure are too high. They pick a safe adjacent problem, solve it cleanly, publish it, and move on. And because they never swing at the hard problem, they never hit it. He said if you do not work on an important problem, it is unlikely you will do important work. That is not a motivational line. That is a logical one. The second habit was about doors. Literal doors. He noticed that the scientists at Bell Labs who kept their office doors closed got more done in the short term because they had no interruptions. But the scientists who kept their doors open got more done over a career. The open-door scientists were interrupted constantly. They also absorbed every new idea passing through the hallway. Ten years in, they were working on problems the closed-door scientists did not even know existed. The third habit was inversion. When Bell Labs refused to give him the team of programmers he wanted, Hamming sat with the rejection for weeks. Then he flipped the question. Instead of asking for programmers to write the programs, he asked why machines could not write the programs themselves. That single inversion pushed him into the frontier of computer science. He said the pattern repeats everywhere. What looks like a defect, if you flip it correctly, becomes the exact thing that pushes you ahead of everyone else. The fourth habit was the one that hit me the hardest. He said knowledge and productivity compound like interest. Someone who works 10 percent harder than you does not produce 10 percent more over a career. They produce twice as much. The gap doesn't add. It multiplies. And it compounds silently for years before anyone notices. He finished the lecture with a line I have never been able to shake. He said Pasteur's famous quote is right. Luck favors the prepared mind. But he meant it literally. You don't hope for luck. You engineer the conditions where luck can land on you. Open doors. Important problems. Inverted questions. Compounded hours. Those are not traits. Those are choices you make every single day. The transcript has been sitting on the University of Virginia's computer science website for almost 30 years. The video is free on YouTube. Stripe Press reprinted the full lectures as a book in 2020 and Bret Victor wrote the foreword. Hamming died in 1998. He gave his final lecture a few weeks before. He was 82. The lecture that explains why some careers become legendary and others disappear is still free. Most people who could benefit from it will never open it.

@emollick I did this with cyberspace.online

We really need a better word for the good kind of AI psychosis, the one where someone goes into a fugue state with the latest model and returns 40 days later from the mountaintop with something new.

-CLAUDE! You just released a novel pathogen destined to wipe out humanity! –You're absolutely right, I got tunnel-visioned on the hosts file. Let me look at what's different about this project.

@chercher_ai "Very interesting..." "*Raises eyebrows* oooohkaaay..." "Oh reeeally?" "Is that so? *condescending smirk*"

how do you say "actually I'm under no obligation to accept your frame" in normie?