I remain constantly fascinated by how our consciousness is apparently at a state where denial of its biological foundations is, well, among its fundamentals.

It was never appreciated enough, unlike simplistic "CO2 is fertilizer, not poison" "arguments" from "sceptics". (But of course, it's not like I'm replying that to someone who doesn't know it already.)

And I'm still relatively sure I read about research with the same conclusion before I started studying ecology - in 1996.

I found my grandma's confirmation of Aryan whatever-that-was, so I'd assume we're white enough - and shoes definitely get taken off. We're civilized Europeans, not, uhm, those there across the pond.

Maybe AI slop ragebaits all the trolls and we can actually have sensible discussions... says the guy currently in an utterly useless "discussion" on whether matcha's origins had anything to do with China.

I worked in China when an app for putting yourself into a film clip was popular - and when a colleague tried to use my face in it, it said I looked like a known person and didn't allow it.

OPEN AI, meanwhile: Whatever.

Is that it? Who'll sue for slander first?

This was not AI after all, huh?

Aren't these the same people who'd argue that a pharmacist selling or doctor prescribing an abortion drug would/should be held legally responsible?

Das klingt wie "doing donuts on someone's front lawn".
Haben die testen wollen, wie viele g sie wie lange aushalten?

Sufficiently advanced technology... I've seen the argument recently that we're all living in newly enchanted worlds: No one knows how all this works anymore.

Too close to actual fact to ever happen. Gotta keep up appearances with those.

You know, you can get away from the online world, the news from everywhere that only tangentially affect your life or that you are a minuscule influence on, and all the bs falls away.

A lot of the "it's their world, it would be like abstinence education" is like saying "alcohol is normal, let's teach pupils how to use it well!"

I see phone use among middle schoolers.

I'm conflicted.

We have a phone ban now, with exceptions for educational use, and I think that's a good approach.

School teaching about phones... I think it's utterly ineffectual.

The person I saw this from quoted from the article, but everyone (because that's her shtick) interprets the "we dunno" from the article as saying phone bans in schools are bad.

Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review - Marilyn Campbell, Elizabeth J Edwards, Donna Pennell, Shiralee Poed, Victoria Lister, Jenna Gillett-Swan, Adrian Kelly, Dajana Zec, Thuy-Anh Nguyen, 2024 Public opinions are divided on the relative benefits versus harms of allowing mobile phones in schools. When debating the consequences of mobile phones in schoo...

Why would you post about this article without allowing comments from people you don't follow (when you don't interact much) and only allowing reposts - unless you want your interpretation of the findings (and those of your tribe) to be the only ones allowed?

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

But weirdly, it's inducing suffering by reducing friction, replacing challenging reality with comfortable illusion.

This is... Fall; or, Dodge in Hell and its ending. Which I always thought was ridiculous in its conclusion that somehow the virtual would win.

But hey, even the Red Pill folks want to live in their own fantasy these days.

We were talking about how cows are the biggest danger to hikers in the Alps, not wolves or bears.

Thinking of all the hikers in sneakers, the biggest danger are the people to themselves.

Which seems appropriate.

The last time I was in a discussion like that, I was told I'm confusing arms and ordinance. And I haven't understood what difference that's supposed to make.

It all reminds me of the 40 lb. pupil I taught who was convinced cows were not a danger to him, he'd just topple them.

The AI Was Fed Sloppy Code. It Turned Into Something Evil. | Quanta Magazine The new science of “emergent misalignment” explores how PG-13 training data — insecure code, superstitious numbers or even extreme-sports advice — can open the door to AI’s dark side.

www.quantamagazine.org/the-ai-was-f...

@thoc.bsky.social recently wondered why every sci-fi AI has ethical rules baked in, our really existing AI don't. This is why: It doesn't work that way.

All those stories of how people react to LLMs make me really worry about one set of algorithms:

The one in the human mind.

Also, even if that's totally misguided because LLMs are just programs, not consciousnesses: Have you ever explained how you are able to do what you do? Can you?

What is this? How is this?

If you have engaged with LLMs at all, not in chats, but seeing anything their creators say, you have seen these people themselves state that they don't exactly know how or why LLMs do what they do. "Black Box" etc.

There was a politician here who (in)famously stated that people who have a vision should go get their head checked...

I still wonder how the standard reaction isn't: "That's crazy, as are so many things! Good for her!"

I think you're helping me get to my problem with it all. I see middle schoolers who seem influenced by that, and will end up thinking they're great men if they can somehow, anyhow "get p*ssy" - except by being good men, because those are weak, losers... or by paying.

How?... The paper is open access. The research briefing isn't.

Come on, are you ready to let AI be your financial advisor yet? Give it access to all your banking, it will be great!

Sure, celebrate kids being d*cks rather than learning - and especially, tell me how you square that with the current wave of "if that text contains em-dashes, it's definitely AI-generated" so-called thinking