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.)

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 8 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Terence Tao observes that an llm may solve a complex mathematical problem without usefully improving the state of mathematics, because the intermediate results of the process themselves can have significant value.

https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117207849921390904

But such an incomprehensible proof would not be the primary value of the exercise. The process of starting with one ansatz, discovering the precise obstruction preventing it from working, adjusting the ansatz to (partially) eliminate that obstruction, and then iterating, would almost certainly reveal important new insights about fluid mechanics that would not have been feasible to obtain by other means. Crucially, this iteration would only work well at producing such insights if the iterator did not have access to the final ansatz in advance, as this naturally inhibits the exploration of alternate routes to the ansatz that are superficially "dead ends", but in fact end up being highly instructive in the nature of their failure.

But there is now a scenario in which an autonomous AI harness, backed by an enormous amount of computational resources, performs this entire iteration internally, and ends up producing the final ansatz, and thence the solution to the Navier-Stokes regularity problem, while the AI company running the harness keeps the process to arrive at that ansatz almost completely out of public view. Technically, one of the most prominent open problems in mathematics would now be solved; but there would be almost no value added to mathematics as a consequence. It is theoretically possible that with some herculean (and heavily AI-assisted) additional effort by a third party, some portion of the process could be reverse-engineered to recover some actual insight and understanding from the solution; but this would be a far less efficient process than if the solution had been obtained via a diverse combination of both human mathematicians and machine assistance as mentioned above.

https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117207855800042681

He’s not the first to have pointed this out, but I think this was a better summary than similar posts that I’ve come across and at least partially understood.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 12 hours ago

    We don't need more of mathematics to look like the Four Color Theorem ("proved", but with no insight gained), with the added problems that the "proofs" are now far more laborious to check even for technical correctness, theorem-proving software is less reliable, and oh yeah, we're holding the population of Memphis to the exhaust pipe of a diesel bus to make it work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    I guess given the demographics of the diehard Bernie bros this isn't necessarily a surprising turn, but it's still disappointing.

    Also, hat tip to Dr. Rasmussen for cogently articulating the frustration of the hour. Why in the hell are we talking about whether the acausal robot God is going to endanger our ability to trade galaxies like Pokemon cards when so much of the world is both literally and figuratively on fucking fire?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 hours ago*

    I mean banning the creation of super AI and pausing all other development is almost certainly going to help with the climate change business due to how much AI contributes to pollution along with every other negative impact of AI (and it also spits in the face of tech bros which is always a plus) but climate change policy should be more focused on over AI policy

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    I don’t even get where Marcus is coming from. He worries that this is a total ban on definitely very useful research, and protests:

    I could support the pause; I cannot support a permanent ban on research that might benefit humanity. We may need a temporary pause, maybe even one that lasts for a number of years, until such time as we have much better ideas about regulation and alignment.

    So just repeal or amend the total ban once those better ideas are available?

    Also that’s a very big MIGHT benefit humanity

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Marcus is not anti-AI. He is anti Scam Altman and Dario - or more specifically anti-llm. He relentlessly witters on about how "well aktually if you did it my way it would be good AI..." he is still an AI maximalist that wants to bring about AGI. He is one of the most frustrating people whose work I've read because he is soooo close to making a good point the majority of the time and then spoils it by saying "but guise we should totally still do AGI and we should do it my way".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    Seems like he's very heavily professionally invested in the symbolic paradigm and given machine learning completely dominates AI at the moment he's taking the piss at them whenever he can. Given the fundamental limitations of ML he's probably right that any sincere attempt to improve on them requires a more symbolic approach, but talking specifically about AGI is getting into woo territory.

  • source
  • parent
  • There's a bizarre tendency in a lot of technocrats to basically reject the notion that people in the future will have the power to make different choices. Like, it's not enough to put together a policy that will solve the immediate problem, no matter how pressing, because if you extend the resulting trend line infinitely it might result in a suboptimal outcome. Combined with the TESCREAL project's long-termism and obsession with personal immortality it feels like the link to far-right paternal totalitarianism is actually pretty straightforward.

    If I were inclined to research and source properly I feel like there could be some meat there that I don't think Emile Torres and his colleagues have gotten all the way into yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

    in which le gwern and sword guy neal sponsor a writing contest

    https://www.gpuworld.org/

    Premise

    Imagine that AI frontier progress stops as of 1 September 2026: AI becomes faster and cheaper, but it never becomes superhuman or improves considerably across the board.

    So the Singularity never happens—but GPUs keep getting made. By 2040, there may be the equivalent of 8 billion GPUs globally and everyone has access to a frontier LLM.

    What happens in this 'business as usual' future?

    I may as well through my name in the hat, I could use the cash. but, who the hell gave them $100k for this? I guess BTC is back up.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 33 minutes ago

    writing a story that looks like it's about everyone having their own LLMs but it's actually about the predicted state of clime catastrophe by 2040 and the consequences of the fascist turn in world politics, and the GPUs don't make the slightest difference to anything and don't really matter for the plot

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago*

    So I love Neal's books, I think he's a fun story-teller and anathems orbital mechanics scene has loads more tension than any slop in something like interstellar.

    But whenever he gets involved in social-technological commentary I am reminded of Ursala Le Guinn's remarks on SciFi authors being professional liars, not prophets.

    Anyway, scour the submissions for little Lytton contest entrants

  • source
  • parent
  • AI Use: LLM use is permitted, but discouraged; we remind participants that LLM use tends to reduce originality and writing quality, and the flaws are especially obvious when LLM outputs are read as a group---unskillful use of LLMs will reduce the odds of being the best entry. We request disclosure of AI use.

    Lol. Lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 child)

    but, who the hell gave them $100k for this?

    the third name is a vc-type, and I bet it won’t take much scratching to find that linked to our good friends and the ongoing public image adjustment campaign that’s seeing funding from a few corners

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    s/gpu/Butt-Face Chester Cheeks/g and you got yourself a deal.

    "The year is 2040. Everybody has access to a Butt-Face Chester Cheeks. What happens in this butt-business as usual future?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago

    I suppose my only-half-joking grant proposal I talk about with linguist friends in which you run an entire large text through a base-model LLM, extract the residual stream, and score every token according to perplexity compared to the ground truth reality in order to ask and answer super interesting questions about information theory in human communication doesn't count?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 21 hours ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 13 hours ago

    Ah fuck, they're also funding {ungeskripted}. He's a way too big german "free speech" type podcaster. I've got him on my shitlist recently, after wonky BSW-type supposed leftists were sharing his clips in a political group chat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    What would people recommend as an alternative email provider that funds fewer (ideally zero) fascists?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 22 hours ago (10 children)

    as always trawling LW's AllPosts section is as they say in the biz a target-rich environment

    wake up babe the LWers are talking about removing parts of their brains

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/puv8fRDCH9jx5yhbX/johnswentworth-s-shortform?commentId=fbKesfzHifdsZAxyf

    great they made a shirt making them easier to avoid

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eq2aJt8ZqMaGhBu3r/zach-stein-perlman-s-shortform?commentId=a2xgz7bevKKHQ8BEj

    here's an update on the modified bacteria in the mouth startup, TL;DR it's much harder than they thought it would be and is it really worth pursuing when we are all gonna be killed by Robot Satan (spoiler of course it is the grift must go on)

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xg4fTBEneAEqprHyk/lumina-probiotic-past-and-future

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 hours ago

    In the ancestral environment, infection was a top killer. Today it's a rounding error. Our immune systems are therefore set by evolution to be far too sensitive for the modern environment.

    Bro what. We keep producing stronger bacteria.

    Somehow I’m hoping that this is the usual eugenics rather than abject stupidity.

  • source
  • parent
  • I don't think any of the words on that shirt are in the Bible.

    Nonzero chance AI kills us before we reach the end of this probably-years-long-process, but we plant trees in whose shade we may never sit. 

    You know, I didn't think it would be necessary to discuss the meaning of that line in a space where people ostensibly take long-termism seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Remove one or two of those reward circuits, especially if they're poorly adapted to the modern environment, and the human becomes more generally capable. I suspect that my own inability to feel love is one example, the amygdalectomy is another, and the general pattern of high-IQ people being somewhat autistic is a third.

    I managed not to click on the linked blog post about the author's inability to feel love.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 16 hours ago (1 child)

    S.R. Constantin's after-action report on MetaMed had a lot of this, like what happened when they decided that doctors were statistically illiterate and did not know about the power of checklists:

    Some of our founding inspirations were the work of Gerd Gigerenzer and Atul Gawande, who showed that medical errors were the cause of many deaths, that doctors tend to be statistically illiterate, and that systematizing tools like checklists and statistical prediction rules save lives. ... Many of the improvements in systematization that were clearly “good buys” have, in fact, been implemented in hospitals since Gawande and Gigerenzer first wrote about them. We never saw a clear-cut case of a patient whose doctors had “dropped the ball” by giving them an obviously wrong treatment, except where the patient was facing financial hardship and had to transfer to substandard medical care. I think doctors don’t make true unforced errors in diagnosis or treatment plan that often; and medical errors like “operating on the wrong leg” that happen in fast-paced decisionmaking environments were necessarily outside our scope.

    They also found that base rates work much better than personalized medicine which is exactly what Kahneman and Tversky find.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 child)

    TL;DR it’s much harder than they thought it would be

    Every time. The only succes they had in the wider space seems to be the EA nets. (And even those had some hiccups when people used the toxic nets to fish).

    Re brain surgery.

    Finally we are reaching The Expanse level of plans from LW, where they did brain surgery on people to remove their empathy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 16 hours ago (1 child)

    Do they actually buy, ship, and distribute nets to poor brown and black people? I thought shorttermists just made spreadsheets and donated to other people's charities.

    Ziz talked about brain surgery and surgical equipment was found in her panel vans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Today’s cognitive surrender news: people asking chatbots to generate them hiking maps and give them advice on route planning and climbing mountains, what to eat on long hikes, and where to camp in national parks. It ends about as well as you’d think.

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/outdoors/article/shasta-climbers-rescued-chatgpt-22414629.php

    (paywalled, but the popovers are easily hidden with browser tools)

    the novice climbers, from Roseville, said they’d entrusted Google's AI chatbot, Gemini, to help them craft key logistics of their trip — from the best route up the mountain to the types of food they should pack and how much water they should carry with them.

    On a separate incident:

    a man stopped rangers to ask for directions. He showed them a print-out map he’d been following and explained that he’d prompted ChatGPT to produce it for him.

    “It was terrible — terrible — not even close to accurate,” Meyers said. “It had route lines and place names that were totally off — just ridiculous. We were like, dude, you gotta throw that away.”

    The original climbing group were standard idiots, having intended to do most of their navigation by phone app, and then failing to have a backup even a working recharge power pack. They also left litter everywhere at that camp site, the usual mark of thoughtless people.

    I’ve no doubt that they’d have fucked things up in the pre-llm days too… they seem the type. But chatbots are power tools for stupidity and offer whole new ways to abdicate thinking and wander into trivially preventable danger, which in turn means more risk for park rangers and mountain rescue teams 🫤

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›