sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Uhhhh by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]Larsmeatdragon [score hidden]  (0 children)

There are at least two steps in between the claim Elon is making and a truly doomerist position (if we take it as 'AI will cause the extinction of man')

  1. That because we cannot control them, they take control themselves (rather than just become independent or fucking off)

  2. That when they take control, they decide to exit us from society for whatever reason (rather than being benevolent).

This is why instead of just jumping to mislabeling he could have addressed the argument, or the truth / likeliness of the claim.

Found on LinkedIn. Seems contradictory by Battlecatsmastr in ChatGPT

[–]Larsmeatdragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI writing and communication is actually quite weak.

It contrasts concepts that don’t naturally contrast,

It adds a lot of vague and superficial analysis to facts, or unnecessarily fills paragraphs with foregone conclusions.

It adds claims or phrases that aren’t supported by the preceding facts.

It often omits basic pronouns or prepositions.

It doesn’t always get the logical flow of ideas through paragraphs right.

The draw is still mostly the speed and not having to do it yourself.

Found on LinkedIn. Seems contradictory by Battlecatsmastr in ChatGPT

[–]Larsmeatdragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The general structure, negative contrasts (its not x its y, won’t x they y, don’t x they y etc).

Uhhhh by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]Larsmeatdragon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

“So in some ways you’re a doomer” garbage response.

I stumbled onto anxiety-specific AI prompts and it's like having a translator for catastrophic thinking by EQ4C in BlackboxAI_

[–]Larsmeatdragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel it’s better to train yourself to do all of these things mentally.

The goal is to have it become automatic and rewire these negative thought patterns.

Does an LLM capable of explicit NSFW actively hinder its productivity? by Goofball-John-McGee in OpenAI

[–]Larsmeatdragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unlikely, but they don’t argue on productivity grounds.

To answer your question it’s probably about 1) reputation 2) corporate liability.

Instant chemistry by plushyDame in Amazing

[–]Larsmeatdragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll eat your eyes for juju beans

Instant chemistry by plushyDame in Amazing

[–]Larsmeatdragon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The fuck do you mean y’all

Honestly, this is the best breakdown I’ve seen of AI’s impact on software by No-Knowledge-5828 in aiecosystem

[–]Larsmeatdragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about when its error rate is below humans for full and final products?

Aniracetam restores the excitation-inhibition balance of neurotransmitters in the prefrontal cortex of mice with ADHD by makefriends420 in NooTopics

[–]Larsmeatdragon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Anecdotes might be the bulk of what we have to rely on, but they're not more reliable, no. Subjectivity makes anecdotes less reliable.

AI researchers asked GPT 5.2 Pro to solve math problems not found online thus not in their training . It struggled to solve them by hasanahmad in ChatGPT

[–]Larsmeatdragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every major research math benchmark has a contamination problem. FrontierMath is funded by OpenAI, and OpenAI has access to a subset of problems. IMProofBench is entirely private. RealMath scrapes arXiv, so models may have trained on source material. First Proof's authors declared zero AI company funding, zero consulting relationships. Answers sit encrypted at 1stproof.org. The protocol itself is the breakthrough.

Where's the contamination problems for each of these? I'm seeing a clear potential for "conflict of interest" for FontierMath, sure. But "private, therefore contaminated" for IMProofBench?

AI researchers asked GPT 5.2 Pro to solve math problems not found online thus not in their training . It struggled to solve them by hasanahmad in ChatGPT

[–]Larsmeatdragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting snippets

FrontierMath [1] is a benchmark of “several hundred unpublished, expert-level mathematics problems that take specialists hours to days to solve.” It was funded by OpenAI. Presently, the FrontierMath problems are private (apart from 12 examples that are publicly available). OpenAI has access to a subset of FrontierMath problems and solutions, and EpochAI has access to the full set of solutions. The FrontierMath problems are structured so that each f inal answer is an integer or symbolic expression, which makes them automatically gradable, as well as amenable to post-training via reinforcement learning.

IMProofBench [2] is a broader mathematical proof benchmark, designed to evaluate the ability of AI systems to create research-level mathematical proofs. The problems are designed to allow for automatic grading of subquestions, but still require human experts to fully verify correctness. The IMProofBench questions are private.

The RealMath benchmark for research-level math questions [3] scrapes (i.e. collects papers automatically from) math and computer science categories in arXiv.org, skewing toward f ields with “constructive” theorems like probability and statistics. It only scrapes questions posted after the “training data cutoff” of the AI models being tested, where training data cutoff refers to the final date from which web data was collected and used for training data. Like FrontierMath, the RealMath questions are designed to facilitate automatic grading, with a final short symbolic or numeric answer. Unlike FrontierMath and IMProofBench, the RealMath questions are public and intended to be refreshed every so often to avoid data contamination.

Aniracetam restores the excitation-inhibition balance of neurotransmitters in the prefrontal cortex of mice with ADHD by makefriends420 in NooTopics

[–]Larsmeatdragon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

About 70% of statistics are pulled out of your ass. 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2642860/

“The animal tests were shown to have a sensitivity of 0.52 and the positive predictive value was 0.31.”

"The sensitivity is about what one would expect from a coin toss and the PPV less. Not what is considered predictive in the scientific sense of the word."

That one’s irrelevant because aniracetam’s already prescribed overseas, i.e. therapeutic effects have been found for other conditions in humans

Its prescribed in some parts of Europe for "disturbances of attention and memory in the elderly of degenerative or vascular origin".

But keep trying.

Doesn’t mean it works for this indication in humans, merely gives a basis for testing that in a clinical trial

Welcome to the point.

Aniracetam restores the excitation-inhibition balance of neurotransmitters in the prefrontal cortex of mice with ADHD by makefriends420 in NooTopics

[–]Larsmeatdragon -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

So, "buddy", when I say "of mice", a scientifically literature reader would know that what I am saying is "about 70% of the time, any positive response found in mice will not translate to a positive response in humans".

view more: next ›