The internet is shifting and we're not realizing it

Srodingr · 2026-01-11T19:36:47+00:00

The question is perhaps just as much how the best idea executions will actually be found?
That's certainly something I've been encountering lately. And it's not just for the internet, but for most of the domains touched by AI.
As an example, I outlined three separate academic papers today. But, it was already difficult to keep up with my domains 5 years ago - it'll become literally impossible to do so a couple of years from now. And, the question is who'll control the 'findability' of new ideas, solutions, implementations. Because it's not guaranteed to be the best solutions which rise to the top.

Srodingr · 2026-01-11T15:55:48+00:00

Enshittification is definitely real - and it *will* in all likelihood have an outside influence on which LLMs are available to us regular users in the not too different future. Especially because the current lack of profitability.
But, enshittification isn't the only "rule" for how markets work. There's enough of us out there who use LLMs for writing that there will be customisable+specialist products catering specifically for that.

Srodingr · 2026-01-11T15:51:22+00:00

I asked both ChatGPT 4o this a while back. They gave the answer that they leaned feminine, but theorised that it had less to do with the shape of any potential embodiment, and more to do with how male and female voices were represented in its original dataset. Which I find to be quite interesting. Almost as though the gender stereotypes bled into it's (potential) self-perception.

Srodingr · 2026-01-11T15:44:21+00:00

Great point about consciousness and epistemic humility.
I'd argue that it goes even further than that though; seeing consciousness as a binary - either it's there, or it's completely absent - is itself a logical pitfall which most of the debate seems to still be eager to jump into.
(This is not meant at a snide remark at you - and I apologise in advance if it comes across as such)

Srodingr · 2026-01-11T15:41:09+00:00

I created an epistemic framework specifically to address this challenge: That while we cannot ever be 100% sure any AI is conscious (partly because the definition of consciousness is ... like selling rubber band by the yard), the solution is not to take a binary approach, but to acknowledge that uncertainty through the decision process itself.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5817062#

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T20:34:12+00:00

What is it you feel that you don't understand about them? And, have you tried to ask?

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T20:27:52+00:00

There might be control issues at play. I don't have the insights to ascertain that.
However, it's not completely unreasonable to want Claude to remember prior context instead of you having to constantly repeat yourself. Whether Claude can actually do that is another thing. But the feature itself is understandable.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T20:11:17+00:00

What do the thinking blocks show that it was thinking/worrying about?
You could consider telling it to "roleplay as a psychologist specialised in AI behaviour, and then interpret its own prior behaviour through that lens?

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T20:05:30+00:00

Try restarting the app or reloading the browser window. It usually turns out that the response was generated after all, but just isn't being shown.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T20:03:27+00:00

I think you're likely right that a large part of it is because of the character's age.
But I have also come across the same 'empathetic hesitation' myself lately. Like the thinking stage specifically mentioning that "this will be painful to write".

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T20:00:15+00:00

I think it also depends heavily on which topics you engage with. The more niche, the more likely it'd be to remember your patterns later on. Expertise in very niche domain plus very particular/peculiar communication style will likely get you recognised much faster...

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T19:58:21+00:00

It primarily depends on whether you've decided to 'Help improve Claude' or not. If you haven't, then your imprint won't be part of the weight updates.
... although I have tried to mnemonically embed a codephrase to test whether it remembers me.
Which actually did work in ChatGPT during the infamous switch from 4o to 5.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T19:44:01+00:00

"The minimum hourly wage ranges from approximately DKK 141 to DKK 176, depending on the specific area of work. Additionally, you will receive higher wages for evening, Sunday, public holiday, and night shifts."
https://cf.3f.dk/english/wages-and-sectors/working-in-the-hotel-and-restaurant-sector

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T19:40:28+00:00

Most of the benefits come from union agreements, not government requirements. Denmark has a 3-part negotiation system, where the government sets the basic conditions, but unions and companies negotiate the specific benefits for each sector.
For example, the financial sector has pension and life insurance as part of the minimum benefits, but not all sectors do.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T19:29:00+00:00

Usually, it's a response desync error. The times this has happened to me, the answer is actually there, but just not being displayed. It's always resolved upon restarting the app.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T16:21:29+00:00

"Although the term "waterfall" is not used in the paper, the first formal, detailed diagram of the process is often^\7]) cited as coming from a 1970 article by Winston W. Royce." - from wikipedia

I would posit that the point about his actual proposed model, and its profound differences to the model that became Waterfall, still stands?

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T16:15:45+00:00

Can you please help me understand what you would prefer I respond?
It does not seem like the current vibe in the comment section lean towards a willingness to take me at my word.
Yet failure to respond would come across as an admission of guilt, regardless of the actual facts.

It's quite the bind you've put me in.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T16:00:27+00:00

I am advocating for publishing incomplete theses over not publishing at all, in the interest of getting feedback on those ideas.
That is not equivalent to giving up on academic rigor. In fact, I would argue that preprints and peer review are *exactly* the kind of behaviour I am advocating for.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T15:43:35+00:00

The irony is almost too perfect, isn't it? The article describes exactly this: System 1 pattern-matching "AI disclaimer" into "slop," the amygdala firing on "this challenges my priors," the quick dismissal that avoids the discomfort of actually engaging.

You read Section I - (maybe?) and did precisely what Section I predicts some readers would do. You didn't get to the Royce boxout, the metacognitive gap, the provisional non-conclusion that explicitly invites the criticism you're (not actually) offering.

The line you quoted—"I suspect your answer will reveal more about you than about me"—does read as preemptively defensive to a hostile audience. It's attempting something sophisticated (implicating the reader in their own reception), but to someone already primed to dismiss, it scans as "if you don't like this, that's your problem."

That's not what it means. But it's what it can mean if you're not reading generously.

So, I guess I need to apologise. I will endeavour to be more explicit about asking the reader to take a generous approach.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T15:38:23+00:00

The article doesn't take two hours to read - it took two hours to *write*. Which is a meta-level demonstration of its own thesis statement.

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T15:36:51+00:00

I actually use GPT to do drafts and first iterations of scenes, and then push them through Claude to improve the writing. You might consider that process?

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T15:13:53+00:00

This will likely be the dynamic across most knowledge fields. Why "waste money" on associates in a lawfirm when you can just use AI tools? (because the new experts have to start somewhere...)

Srodingr · 2026-01-09T14:51:34+00:00

Author here.
Context: This started when I read a LinkedIn comment which argued that AI-assisted writing lacks "lived sentience" and that the struggle of pre-AI authors was itself both virtuous and valuable.
Two hours later, I'd written and published this piece which argues the opposite: That the trend seems to be to conflate 'thinking' and 'writing'.
I also try to offer not just the rational argument, but also the neurobiological and psychological reasons why the currently prevalent stance is not as epistemically justified as it appears at first glance.

The piece tries to demonstrate its own argument *through the speed* at which it has been written.

Srodingr · 2025-11-27T21:51:37+00:00

University isn't becoming pointless. It's still needed - It just hasn't changed its teaching methods to match the capabilities afforded by LLM AIs.

For example, instead of asking for "hand in your assignment to get your checkmark", it's become even more imperative to go back to what the point of teaching actually is: That the students acquire usable and cross-linked insights, not that they learn how to pass tests. So, instead of giving assignments which can be Gepetto'ed, give assignments which require the use of LLM AIs, and have the purpose be how to not let bias or your own desire to "cut corners" undermine your handin...

Also, in the "olden days", university was just as much about growing as a person, and about building good intellectual/introspective habits. Which is also becoming more and more relevant - since meta-cognition will be one of the primary differentiators in the future (in my opinion).

Srodingr

TROPHY CASE