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

@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

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.

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

@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

@stella_lennart Wait till he'll hear about YOUR emotions, if you'd do it early morning that might be your day off

I told Fable 5 about a friend. How lovely he is, but a bit too emotional. The chat got paused. I edited. And edited again. And again, and again. Deleted words, that could maybe trigger something. But no. I couldn't get it through. Now I reached my usage limit. Well done @AnthropicAI

@yanabana @ZeffMax really?

@ZeffMax I am!

where are openai/anthropic employees buying clothes from post IPO

@ZeffMax Second hand, at last

@distributedkv I might help if you agree: free dinner forever

@BenjaminDEKR May I risk one guess

The reality is that many of the world's most respected, experienced tech and energy companies are NOT fast-tracking AI and robotics into the industry. They are cautiously seeing where things go but having humans do the work for the foreseeable future.

@generic_void 👁‍🗨Wu Wei

wait wtf I turned this thing off years ago?

@alightinastorm You just got a free ride without asking it

what the fuck is even happening rn

@GrantHBrennerMD and how would they know?

Asking someone what they need isn't always what they need.

@SV_Rocks @PaoloMiasma @archibaldxiv Thinkingoutloud: did you ever experience it first hand on whatever side? You teach so it's getting clearer for you. You're taught, there is a chance for you to make something out of it.But the belief, there lies the problem, what the belief is? Certainty forced upon the uncertain

@CKitman28410 @PaoloMiasma @archibaldxiv There's a clear distinction between a charlatan and a true Guru. Who benefits from the belief, the teacher or the taught? This is true for all faith. Does it empower you, or hand it over to someone else?

If I post the depths of esoteric and occult knowledge on twitter it goes over everyones head so I just spit basic truths.

@QuoteJung Oh Carl, that's just the light at the end of the commercial tunnel