I’d bet dollars to donuts that the internal documents from OpenAI on this marketing push are pretty clear about the real goal here. Plagiarism is one of the most visible and easiest to understand problems enabled by GenAI. My wife is getting an online degree and it’s incredibly obvious how many other students are just shamelessly dumping the assignment into chatGPT. So they need to reframe it as part of a wider conversation about GenAI and education, which is where you get the nonsense buzzword courses that don’t attempt to engage with even the most obvious problems.

I like how he even had someone with art expertise literally explain it to him and he writes it off as “lol she must have super artist vision for details.”

I don’t know there’s something here about how broken the way we engage with art is. How commodified art is inherently decontextualized and while you can see the beauty or the power or whatever you lose something without the curation and presentation you get from a gallery or a museum.

I also want to dunk on a few of the specific inclusions. AI clearly doesn’t understand the point of cubism in particular, making it an exceptionally clear example of what Scott’s artist friend was talking about. Including a digital photograph of a collage that clearly makes use of the depth of the actual work is pretty dumb.

I heard the Chinese have a grooming machine that… actually I don’t think I want to finish that joke.

See, isn’t the 4-hour work week one of those “just make other people work 50+hours a week on your behalf and take the money they’ve earned for it” schemes? This looks much broader rather than being married to a specific sub-scam. Like, if crypto is down they can sell drop shipping. If drop shipping is cringe they can sell AI slop monetization. If Amazon tightens their standards and starts locking out AI stuff they can go back to crypto.

It’s in the same genre of trying to monetize being a conspicuous asshole, but it is one of the more complex evolutions, at least compared to the standard grift-luencer.

And having played more LoL than I care to admit in high school, that’s some truly vile shit. If only it actually made it through the filters to whoever actually made the relevant choices.

Never thought I’d die fighting alongside a League of Legends fan.

How about an artist valuer?

Aye. That I could do.

Particularly hilarious at how thoroughly they’re missing the point. The fact that it suggests illegal moves at all means that no matter how good it’s openings are the scaling laws and emergent behaviors haven’t magicked up an internal model of the game of Chess or even the state of the chess board it’s working with. I feel like playing games is a particularly powerful example of this because the game rules provide a very clear structure to model and it’s very obvious when that model doesn’t exist.

See, you’re assuming the goal of moderation is to maintain a healthy social space online. By definition this excludes fascists. It’s that old story about how to make sure your punk bar doesn’t turn into a nazi punk bar. But what if instead my goal is to keep the peace in my nazi punk bar so that the normies and casuals keep filtering in and out and making me enough money that I can stay in business? Then this strategy makes more sense.

Quick, find the guys who were taping their phones to a ceiling fan and have them get to it!

Jokes aside I’m actually curious to see what happens when this one screws up. My money is on one of the Boston Dynamics dogs running in circles about 30 feet from the intended target without even establishing line of sight. They’ll certainly have to test it somehow before it starts autonomously ordering drone strikes on innocent people’s homes, right? Right?

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

There’s got to be some kind of licensing clarity that can be actually legislated. This is just straight-up price gouging through obscurantism.

AI finally allowing grooming at scale is the kind of thing I’d expect to be the setup for a joke about Silicon Valley libertarians, not something that’s actually happening.

Computer scientists hate him: solve the halting problem by smashing all running computers with a sledgehammer.

Sure we’ve been laying the groundwork for this for decade, but we wanted someone from our cult of personality to undermine democracy and replace it with explicit billionaire rule, not someone with his own cult of personality.

Reading the article explains the article, my dude.

I know next to nothing about C++ but I do know that I heard that closing line in the original voice and got goosebumps.

I’m pretty sure you could download a decent markov chain generator onto a TI-89 and do basically the same thing with a more in-class appropriate tool, but speaking as someone with dogshit handwriting I’m so glad to have graduated before this was a concern. Godspeed, my friend.

Obviously mathematically comparing suffering is the wrong framework to apply here. I propose a return to Aristotelian virtue ethics. The best shrimp is a tasty one, the best man is a philosopher-king who agrees with everything I say, and the best EA never gets past drunkenly ranting at their fellow undergrads.

I mean, that kind of suggests that you could use chatGPT to confabulate work for his class and he wouldn’t have room to complain? Not that I’d recommend testing that, because using ChatGPT in this way is not indicative of an internally consistent worldview informing those judgements.

You’re doing the lord’s simulation-author’s work, my friend.