Want to wade into the sandy surf of the abyss? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid.

Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)

  • samvines@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Soon, at each new model of AI along the current capability curve, you will start to see large discrete jumps in ability in economically important areas, because the previous AI ability level in some aspect of the job just wasn't good enough and bottlenecked progress. When bottlenecks are released, it looks like a leap forward. It is going to look like unexpected gains in AI capacity, and, indeed there is no sign that the current exponential ability curve is slowing down so far but it is going to be like what happened in coding: as soon as models crossed a certain threshold with Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2, and Gemini 3, suddenly Claude Code & Codex were viable.  Before that, it was all about coding assistance, afterwards it was all about agents from despite relatively small gains in model ability

    There is just something so inherently smug and annoying about Mollick. He is one of those low information boosters whose posts sound intellectual until you really think about them.

    Tell me more about how the pile of cursed spaghetti that is Claude code is now viable due to model breakthroughs. All I see are hype men saying “the new model is a team of PhDs in your pocket” and then releasing disappointing updates or saying “the new model is too dangerous” because they have some vaporware powered by human crowdsourcing.

    Also coding is not like other areas - you can test for hallucinations by compiling and printing and running tests.

    I guess my first mistake this morning was opening linkedin

    • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’ve never understood how these things are simultaneously gaining their abilities based on statistical analysis of all kinds of random writings online including social media, fanfic, reddit, etc. but also are simultaneously supposed to end up as experts rather than a much faster and more agreeable dumbass. Like, the training data may include all the great works of literature, all the scrapable scientific studies and textbooks they could steal, and so on. But it also included every moron who ever shared conspiracy theories on Twitter, every confident-sounding business idiot on LinkedIn, and every stupid word that Scott or Yud ever wrote. Surely the bullshit has to exceed the expertise by raw volume, and if they took the time and energy to curate it out the way they would need to to correct that they wouldn’t be left with a large enough sample to actually scale off of.

      Basically, either I’m dramatically misunderstanding something or the best we can hope for is the Average Joe on Reddit, who may not be a complete dumbass but definitely isn’t a team of PhDs.

      • scruiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        LLMs generate the next most probable token given the previous context of tokens they have (not an average of the entire internet). And post-training shifts the odds a bit further in a relatively useful direction. So given the right context the LLM will mostly consistently regurgitate content stolen from PhDs and academic papers, maybe even managing to shuffle it around in a novel way that is marginally useful.

        Of course, that is only the general trend given the righttm prompt. Even with a prompt that looks mostly right, one seemingly innocuous word in the wrong place might nudge the odds and you get the answer of a moron /r/hypotheticalphysics in response to a physics question. Or a asking for a recipe gets you elmer’s glue on your mozarella pizza from a reddit joke answer.

        if they took the time and energy to curate it out the way they would need to to correct that they wouldn’t be left with a large enough sample to actually scale off of

        They do steps like train the model generally on the desired languages with all the random internet bullshit, and then fine-tuning it on the actually curated stuff. So that shifts the odds, but again, not enough to actually guarantee anything.

        So tldr; you’re right, but since it is possible to get somewhat better than average internet junk with pre-training and prompting, llm boosters and labs have convinced themselves they are just a few more iterations of training approaches and prompting techniques away from entirely eliminating the problem, when the best they can do is make it less likely.