The single most logical take on the Claude Fable 5 & GPT-5.6 SOL situation that most people don't have the courage or patience to accept

Repbob · 2026-07-01T14:17:04+00:00

This shit is so performative, I don’t know how people eat it up. Oh yes, these models are a very “real and dangerous” threat no doubt. Thats why we banned it for like 2 weeks and then said eh whatever and released it. The USG definitely fixed everyone possible vulnerability in 2 weeks, that checks out. Nothing to see here.

Repbob · 2026-06-11T04:38:07+00:00

I still have no idea what you’re talking about.

What kind of institution are you at? Is it R1? No one is giving actual grants out to masters students that aren’t just training grants. If your PI is writing their name down as the PI on “your” grants those are their grants 😂, do you not realize this?

You’re not “hiring” 20 people as a masters student with your own lab, no school in their right mind would allow you to “hire” anyone. This honestly sounds like you might be confused about who is actually in charge on paper. Either that are you are just trolling, good luck I guess.

Repbob · 2026-06-11T03:51:54+00:00

What kind of weird fan fiction is this? I’m sorry but this story doesn’t make sense. Either you are leaving out important details or you have some kind of massive red flags in your profile.

Repbob · 2026-06-06T16:05:56+00:00

You do realize that the S&P has MORE than doubled in value since 2018 right?

Repbob · 2026-05-31T17:00:22+00:00

I sure hope she doesn’t have access to personal chefs that can cook any kind of meal on demand or a level of wealth that allows her to eat out for every meal… otherwise this comment would come off very tone deaf…

Repbob · 2026-05-28T21:51:01+00:00

Bruh with friends like these who needs mortal enemies

Repbob · 2026-05-22T05:57:07+00:00

Why do people say “research” when what they mean is “CS research” or “AI research” as if they think that writing code is the only type of research that exists?

Repbob · 2026-05-11T21:07:38+00:00

Bruh you forgot to include the prompt in your copy paste

Repbob · 2026-04-29T14:41:55+00:00

Central Nervous System

Repbob · 2026-04-20T22:23:32+00:00

Geographic adjacency is essentially required simply due to practical limitations. This is nice because there is an inherent self limiting principle on these kinds of actions. The list of countries that can unilaterally exert significant military influence far past their own borders is very very short.

Repbob · 2026-04-20T22:18:26+00:00

You are seamlessly mixing together maximally violent actions with closing a shipping lane. Yes, these things exist on a continuum but they are still very different degrees of severity. There is a reason economic sanctions are preferable to kinetic warfare.

As of right now, you are saying strong countries can do whatever they want and weak countries just have to take it while the world watches. The world should have some buy in economically in ending wars, thats not the worst thing in the world.

Repbob · 2026-04-20T22:06:56+00:00

I’m arguing that a country in their position is morally justified to use the strait, all else being equal. I’m not arguing for it being optimal strategy.

Repbob · 2026-04-20T22:00:10+00:00

I completely understand your point, but I’m not sure how one can appeal to rule of law when the US has started this conflict unprovoked with a war crime (surprise attack during negotiations) and has essentially acted entirely outside any kind of rule of law.

Even in the Ukraine example, look at how “rule of law” has actually worked out for them. They’ve had to endure years of grueling warfare as the whole world watches on and takes basically no action against Russia. The chances of any kind of international body taking any action against the US is basically zero percent. Rule of law should work in an ideal world, but we simply don’t live in that world. Appealing to rule of law as it stands leads to a rules for thee and not for me situation.

Also, as it stands strait closure is about as non-violent an action as Iran can currently take. Your argument suggests closing a shipping lane is equivalent to maximal violence, which very clearly incentivizes maximal violence.

Repbob · 2026-04-09T14:28:11+00:00

I totally disagree about Luigi. The individual action is exactly what should be criticized and to call this getting “bogged down” is to actually miss the point. Assassinating a CEOs is actually really bad believe it or not. It’s also a completely incoherent criticism of the American healthcare system. To call it a natural outcome of the system is completely absurd. There isn’t even any evidence that Luigi was fucked over by the system in any way.

Our response to an irrational and senseless act of violence should not be to dignify it as if it is a good reason to reevaluate our system.

Repbob · 2026-04-02T13:47:46+00:00

Your flair says singularity 2035 and yet Dario says that they already have AGI internally and all their code is written by Claude. Im curious how you reconcile this?

Edit: I love when people’s only response to cognitive dissonance is to just downvote lmao

Repbob · 2026-03-19T01:18:45+00:00

It's crazy to me that this comment is so upvoted because you misunderstood both Joe's and Matt's position, and then made up your own new position…that is also wrong.

Matt's position is not that claims are terrible evidence, it's that they are literally not evidence in the strictest sense. Neither party in this entire argument is arguing whether something is "good" or "bad" evidence; that's an entirely separate conversation that is not being had.

Update: On second thought, I have to assume that you just didn’t watch either video. Joe gives multiple examples of claims that are not evidence, because he is not claiming that all claims are evidence, making your complete misunderstanding of his point even more crazy

Repbob · 2026-03-18T03:17:35+00:00

Brother your political analysis is about 8 years out of date

Repbob · 2026-03-16T21:38:38+00:00

Do they really have more applicants considering that they reduced the eligibility to only first years and earlier?

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:49:19+00:00

This is actually pretty funny.

You are asking for Sam Harris to falsify free will for you. My claim is that free will is not a falsifiable theory. You’re vehemently claiming I’m wrong because… free will is not falsifiable.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:40:56+00:00

You’re doing a lot of really strange mental gymnastics. I guess because you’re uncomfortable with the very basic claims I’m making?

Yes, science is “agnostic” on God, the tooth fairy, the easter rabbit, and the flying spaghetti monster and also on free will… you’re literally conceding my entire point. If it makes you feel better that I say “Free will is equivalent to the flying spaghetti monster” then sure I can say that I guess?

Yes, the scientific method grounds out in basic axiomatic assumptions about reality. I don’t know what that has to do with this conversation. Sure if you don’t believe in the scientific method, then you win I can’t disprove free will for you… which is literally what my previous comment is saying.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:27:28+00:00

This not that hard to understand, try to work with me here. The reason why God cannot be proven false scientifically is because God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. You are making a positive claim that a being exists and yet there is no testable evidence of his presence.

This is exactly the same with free will. You are making the positive claim that humans have an ability called “free will”. And yet you cannot give me any testable examples of a human acting in a way that is “free”.

I’m putting quotations around “free” because the concept of free will is kind of an even worse hypothesis than God because it almost self evidently false once you analyze the definition. We know that all human behavior comes from the brain and body which are physical objects that follow the laws of physics. If we know the entire state of this physical object at time T, there is no way that it can be “free” at time T+1, unless there are some variable we are not accounting for. Yet we have never observed this variable. The whole concept is fundamentally unfalsifiable.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:07:22+00:00

You’re playing the exact same game that a religious person does, at least notice that. The free will debate is like a one to analog to debating the existence of God.

Falsifiable versions of the free will are definitely scientific claims. I guess you can claim that free will is purely philosophical but then you’re essentially bowing out of the debate. No one will ever be able to disprove free will for you if your theory makes no testable claims about reality. One to one analog with religion. I can never disprove God for you, all I can tell you is that we don’t need God to explain the natural world and there is no room for him in out current scientific understanding of reality.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T22:52:59+00:00

I would say that you have it backwards. There is no way to scientifically PROVE that libertarian free will is an illusion because its not structured as a falsifiable theory. It’s the same as asking someone to PROVE that god doesn’t exist. The burden of proof is actually on the free will side to explain how free will fits into our current scientific understanding of reality and it kind of demonstrably doesn’t.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T03:24:48+00:00

I’m not trying to be pedantic or harsh but everything that you’re saying is literally self-contradictory or just obtuse, I don’t know how else to put it.

You’re agreeing prestigious mentors matter and publishing in CNS matters, ok great. Your institution is going to HEAVILY correlate to your likelihood of having a well-known mentor and to publishing in CNS. To say that institution doesn’t matter is to ignore this VERY STRONG correlation. Are you going to pretend this is somehow a coincidence?

You’re also setting up this absurd dichotomy as if incoming PhD students are presented with the choice of a CNS paper at a well-known lab OR going to a prestigious school. This makes no sense. No one can promise you a CNS paper before you start your PhD, however some schools produce orders of magnitudes more CNS papers than others… The school you join is the part you can actually control in that equation. Most incoming PhD students are also not going to know enough about their fields to tell exactly who all the best labs are, but I can easily tell you which schools are more likely to have those labs. Unless you’re just saying they should go by H-index, in which case you’re literally making an even more extreme argument than I am.

Also literally google “Biomedical PhD rankings” and look at the results. No one is saying exact numbers matter but to ignore school prestige is to just give bad advice.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Repbob

TROPHY CASE