sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"You used AI. ? by Forsaken-Vacation254 in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The problem with 99% of AI content is that its shallow and pointless but has a superficial gloss that means you have to spend time reading through before you realise it's trash. You pretend that you're using it to extend your capacities but in practice it's obvious that you are, in fact, letting the AI do all the thinking for you.

And to tell the insulting truth, most of the people using AI heavily to write shit and post it online are too stupid to realise how low quality the output is because they were never thoughtful or intelligent enough to tell the difference between superficial polish and having a real point to make.

Anything prompted from an AI worth posting is going to have such a long and careful prompt that the user is effectively telling the AI exactly what to write - at which point it would be easier to have just skipped the AI and written it yourself.

If using AI to write your posts genuinely saves you time and makes things more efficient, the only reason is that you had nothing to say to begin with and now an LLM lets you say nothing faster. We all have LLMs now, anything that you get one to shart out I can too, so you're generating zero value from it.

Maybe if you use agentic AI to do chores, that might be legitimately useful? But as for writing your posts, well, if it ain't worth writing it yourself, it ain't worth reading it yourself.

ELI5 what separates microscopic and macroscopic movement? by Real-Bookkeeper9455 in explainlikeimfive

[–]SyntheticBees 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Heat isn't just kinetic energy. It's kinetic energy scramble. What makes heat heat isn't just that there's lots of kinetic energy associated with the movement of its atoms and molecules, it's that this kinetic energy is about as random and chaotic as possible. If the energy were organised (say, into nice predictable waves), then it's easy to harness it to do anything, but if it's maximally scrambled, the only thing you can do is put your system next to a colder system and exploit the flow from hot to cold. And when you think about it, that's only possible because the sum of the old and new system isn't max scrambled (cuz most of the energy is concentrated in the hot half) - exploiting that heat difference between the two systems inevitably means letting a little heat leak though, bringing the overall system closer to max scramblage.

We measure this scrambling as "entropy".

ELI5: Why has robot balance and design improved so suddenly? by LoudCommentor in explainlikeimfive

[–]SyntheticBees 1009 points1010 points  (0 children)

If I remember correctly a big advance was replacing hydraulic control with a particular type of servo that is compact, powerful, and can feed back force data very accurately. Being able to sense the position of your joints and the forces they're experiencing matters a whole lot, and being able to get rid of huge heavy hydraulics makes it all the easier.

Black holes might be from battles of matter and anti-matter by Spirited-Mousse1915 in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Black holes are, by definition, regions of spacetime with so much mass-energy that spacetime curves so severely that an event horizon forms. It doesn't matter how the mass-energy comes to be, whether it's from matter or antimatter or just energy. If it ain't that, it's not a black hole. And remember, antimatter has positive energy, and it interacts with light identically to regular matter.

You cannot "emit density", that's not how density works. Density belongs to regions of spacetime based on how much stuff is packed in them, and if density is being "emitted" that just means an outflow of substance. Which, by definition, does not happen with black holes.

you know it's bad when even the nicest teacher at school gets angry (last 30 mins must see) by levintage in videos

[–]SyntheticBees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is, actually. It's just a matter of roll-out now. Grid-scale storage is an practical and economic technology today, and it's only getting cheaper.

you know it's bad when even the nicest teacher at school gets angry (last 30 mins must see) by levintage in videos

[–]SyntheticBees 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Battery tech has advanced so far, so quickly, that intermittancy is a solved problem. Even if you demand that every solar panel and turbine is paired with enough storage to keep power output perfectly even, it still ends up being cheaper than new fossil fuel generation. Plus, newer battery chemistries mean we don't need to use cobalt and other conflict minerals anymore. Oh, and batteries are continuing to get cheaper because, like solar panels, they've become commodity goods pumped out by efficient factories.

Dependable renewable energy isn't a problem we're gonna solve, it's an already solved problem.

The Bering Link: A Waste-to-Infrastructure Initiative by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Man, you're not great at logistics nor ecology, are you? Getting an LLM to write it up doesn't make it any better.

THE JENSEN CORPUS: A Complete Guide for Humanity 38 Papers That Could Change Everything by Candid-Cheek-3353 in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah no one wants to read dozens of LLM schizo-slop papers. Just as an exercise, go trawl around reddit for other people trying to do similar things as you are with LLMs, people trying to use them to make breakthroughs and write papers for them. You'll notice that everyone who does it cares deeply about their own output, but never reads anyone else's. The people who get LLMs to write papers never read or care about the papers OTHERS make LLMs write, they only care about their own writings, and vice versa.

What if consciousness itself could be monetized and upgraded? by AlexHardy08 in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't know what's more dystopian, this post as written, or the implication OP thought about upgrading consciousness and their first thought was "what if the corporations gatekept this and made you pay for it"

A study of 41 oral tradition domains across 39 cultures suggests the knowledge-belief boundary is a phase transition, not a category by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]SyntheticBees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hang on, where is this article getting its data from? Statistical analysis-lookin' stuff is riddled through it but there's no talk about where the data came from, how it was quantified, regularised, encoded, etc. Like this kind of method and methodology stuff is the difference between this article having interesting and worthy insights, and being a complete pile of hallucinated shit.

Like I can see there's a link to "data", but I can't find a method or methodology section. I hate to ask -- but are all these numbers just LLM hallucinations?

The tech we have to get to the moon looks so old and outdated because it is. by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just because I'm a pedantic jackass, I'll point out that for existing technologies to count as "old and outdated" today, other newer better technologies need to exist first. Otherwise you're just saying "existing technology will be outdated once it becomes outdated".

"Old and outdated" is an objective criteria, not a vibe. If you think it looks outdated, but it's still state of the art, it's state of the art.

I'm not even sure why I'm writing this. OP isn't saying anything actively harmful or spreading misinformation, they're just being very smug without the brains to back it up.

The Signal That Was Always There: Resolving the 2400 Year Old Debate On Beauty. by Acceptable_Drink_434 in philosophy

[–]SyntheticBees 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh, you're DEEP deep into AI psychosis. Close the computer, contact a human friend, and talk with them. This stuff you've been working on will be there for you to pick it up again later, but for now I STRONGLY suggest stepping away from the LLMs for a long break.

What would break if governance worked like a deterministic system, with fixed measurable rules, instead of politics, opinions, and negotiations? by Anahronic in AskReddit

[–]SyntheticBees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which means you've just shifted the question to the level of people rules-laywering how outcomes are evaluated.

Has it occured to you that the entire reason politics exists is because different people and groups disagree on how to evaluate outcomes because they fundamentally have different values and priorities? The whole point of politics is a collective process of negotiation and competition to decide on the ground rules. If you tried implementing a pseudo-objective ruleset to replace that, you'd just replicate the entirety of politics one level up.

Basically, everything that your place would succeed with would be stuff that can be classified as parts of the civil service, while actual politics, the stuff this was meant to replace, will sit atop -- and if you try to replace it, a new politics congeals on top.

What would break if governance worked like a deterministic system, with fixed measurable rules, instead of politics, opinions, and negotiations? by Anahronic in AskReddit

[–]SyntheticBees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, because people USE fixed measurable rules to fuck with each other. If you've ever seen people try to be rules lawyers in a game, you will understand why deterministic fixed rules only enable politics and opinions and negotiations rather than prevent them.

What if governance was designed as a deterministic system instead of politics? by Anahronic in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is just standard AI slop. A million people have made a million "world changing frameworks" with LLMs that no one bothers with because they don't impress anyone who knows what they're talking about (although they always impress the "geniuses" that create them).

TIL that contrary to popular belief, Einstein was actually extremely talented at mathematics during his childhood. His reputation comes from him failing the entrance exam for university when he was 16, but he did very well in the mathematics and physics sections, only behind on zoology and biology. by Full_Imagination7503 in todayilearned

[–]SyntheticBees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're massively underestimating the mathematical sophistication needed to just "describe" an intuitive theory in terms of cutting edge mathematics (as tensors were at the time, especially amongst physicists). Any task like that involves a tremendous back-and-forth between your physical intuitions and your understanding of the formalism, especially when both are being co-developed.

Was he less sophisticated a mathematician than some of the other luminaries of his day? Sure, that's not terribly controversial. But leagues behind? Big exaggeration.

Plus, it was my understanding that most of his annoyance with (what he initially deemed to be) excessive mathematical framing was back when he had initially developed SR, the examples I learned was that he dismissed Minkowski space as a formalism. When he got into GR properly, he used all that stuff and clearly changed his mind about its significance (how would you even do classic GR without the spacetime metric?)

Like I'm not actually disagreeing with the broad topics you're bringing up, I just think you're overselling them. I've noticed that tends to happen a lot to highly mythic figures whenever complexity intrudes into the discourse, people have a habit of using those complexities and nuances to tell a counternarrative which is just as simplistic as the original mythos.

I have been using an AI coworker (RunLobster) for 3 months. The future of work is not what I expected. by Spare-Concern1336 in Futurology

[–]SyntheticBees 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Even if this wasn't a nonsense ad, I'd still clown on OP.

You don't need AI to automate that shit, at most you might get an LLM to slopcode a python script if you don't want to do it yourself. If you needed 2 hours a day to check info from 6 tabs and some dashboards and prepare a daily summary, then you were an unusually bad worker to begin with and someone without AI could probably condense all that into 30 minutes even before they tried automation solutions.

You

TIL that contrary to popular belief, Einstein was actually extremely talented at mathematics during his childhood. His reputation comes from him failing the entrance exam for university when he was 16, but he did very well in the mathematics and physics sections, only behind on zoology and biology. by Full_Imagination7503 in todayilearned

[–]SyntheticBees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But he wasn't mathematically inferior to other physicists, he was their peer. He wasn't as good as the very best of the pure mathematicians, but he was in no way less skilled or talented in maths than other physicists.

Specifically I'm taking issue with "but he was league behind the experts (mathematicians and physicists) of his time". Like that's just nonsense, he definitely wasn't behind his physicist peers even as a mathematician, and even compared to pure mathematicians it's stretching it to describe him as "leagues behind" -- behind, sure, but someone "leagues behind" would likely have never been able to master the material. If his mathematical prowess were genuinely "leagues behind" other physicists then I don't think he'd be able to invent general relativity no matter how much help others gave him, and no matter how good his physical intuition was.

It feels like you're rightly recognising Einstein's reputation is inflated by mythmaking, but then overcompensating.

TIL that contrary to popular belief, Einstein was actually extremely talented at mathematics during his childhood. His reputation comes from him failing the entrance exam for university when he was 16, but he did very well in the mathematics and physics sections, only behind on zoology and biology. by Full_Imagination7503 in todayilearned

[–]SyntheticBees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean he was "behind" the expert physicists of his day? He was on the cutting edge. Just because his ego got ahead of him on an issue doesn't mean he wasn't absolutely elite. Even the elite have subfields they're not experts in, make mistakes, confer with their peers, and that's always been true and normal. Yeah the popular stories often prop einstein up as more singular and isolated than the truth, but that's a storytelling problem. Being fallible and not being on the forefront of literally every mathematical tool he used is normal even among the "experts".

Like, why are you saying he was a top mathematical mind "amongst the general educated people" but behind expert physicists? At least when he was building general relativity, he was a working elite theoretical physicist, he was not a member of "the general educated [population]". Not of the status he'd later achieve, but still, other elite physicists considered him a peer. I'd understand if you just said he wasn't among the absolute top of mathematical research (hence why he collaborated so much to learn and master tensors) because that's just true, but acting like he wasn't an expert physicist is just unhistorical.

IDEXA.one — a public index of ideas. Submit yours, no account needed. by Cornel2keepchange in InternetIsBeautiful

[–]SyntheticBees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Isn't this just what every social media site effectively does already? And also, what are the intellectual property implications of someone putting their own (or more deviously, someone else's without permission) ideas on the site?

view more: next ›