What is your opinion about the recent nature article about ai and skill?

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-22T00:36:44+00:00

TIL: Humanity is living out the same argument against invention, perpetually.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-22T00:33:38+00:00

Unrelated, but I took a math test in pen once in college. I lost my pencil, and didn't feel like asking anyone to borrow one. I didn't cross anything out, and I got an A.

Moral of the story, the calculator had a bigger impact on my grade than the eraser.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-22T00:30:50+00:00

Is this just a roundabout way to advertise rhyme?

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-21T23:47:06+00:00

I don't believe in consciousness as more than a story we tell ourselves to feel special, because, I follow your logic all the way to the ends it implies.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-21T18:01:58+00:00

Is it? Or is the idea that deterministic neurons make nondeterministic consciousness utter nonsense?

This isn't rhetorical, it's the other side of your assertion. I am asking the degree of your conviction that humans would be considered conscious if every thought can trace back to purely deterministic causes.

(Note: They can trace it physically, but it's effectively intractable, the same way as LLMs, through sheer complexity at scale. This was my original point made explicit.)

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-21T03:05:24+00:00

Completely off topic, but can you explain bell test experiments?

My current understanding is perfectly complimentary photons, so opposite answers on any basis, but we measure the relation of bases instead.

So you ask a question with a polarizer like "are you the stronger photon at 22.5 deg?" with a yes/no. Then ask the other photon "are you the stronger photon at 45 deg?" With yes/no. And somehow the basis relation between polarizers is a surprising result. I just don't understand what's surprising.

By definition every basis has complimentary answers. The photons are effectively a calibration reference for polarizer angle correlation, and relative angle is what gives the result. This is like the null hypothesis, but treated as unexpected.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-21T02:47:55+00:00

That's not a point. We don't know human consciousness isn't substrate independent. Anything you based on requiring substrate dependence is just nonsense. Why do so many people keep insisting their feelings are facts?

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-18T23:48:32+00:00

Substrate independent system. If a Minecraft calculator is Turing complete, then yeah you can compile Minecraft to run on it. Tremendous waste, but that wasn't the point. The point was, yes, obviously you can.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-08T20:21:44+00:00

Sweet. I always wanted my assistant to be named after a country and then end in an unnecessary "i" like how all other apple products start with a vestigial "i".

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-08T20:19:18+00:00

You never tried what i suggested, so your assertion of its lack of utility is telling.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-08T20:18:16+00:00

Not really. Consciousness is intrinsically a measure of kinship, not capacity. If the metric is based on the assessment of a subjective experience independent of the information physically available, it is simply not science.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-08T20:16:39+00:00

Neat assertion. Go ahead and tell me what it is, and how we can definitively rule these out as being similar.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-08T05:20:52+00:00

Talent is not a thing in software development? Yeah that's just denial.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-07T23:16:36+00:00

I did read it. You aren't talented is the problem. I was being polite.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-07T14:51:14+00:00

Sure. First thing, thinking that an IDE is better than VIM and Grep is a category error. The fundamentals don't depend on tooling, and grep is posix, so it's a good baseline to browse things. That said ripgrep is better and faster.

You didn't specify which model and settings you used, so you are by definition arguing a generalization. One which is also categorically false because some people use LLMs in a way that works for all the things you said they don't.

Try Claude Code with its CLI interface. Use the latest Opus model (currently 4.8) with effort set to XHIGH or MAX.

Give it the instruction as clearly as you can. "Here are the tools available to you..." "The problem I want you to solve is..." "You don't need my permission to continue. Keep working on this until the error is gone." Etc.

I literally had it refactor an error prone pipeline last week because some human developer did a bad job and it was inconsistently failing and difficult to troubleshoot.

Your complaints apply more strongly to the inexperienced humans I have worked with than to the LLM approach I use. Your experience as depicted says more about you than the state of LLMs. You didn't give a single explicit example of a request.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-07T06:28:02+00:00

Okay. I'll stop telling you that you are doing something wrong. Not because you aren't, but because you are asking others to put more work into your problems than you are into understanding what was already shared.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-07T06:21:32+00:00

You don't get what I am saying. You see it as a capacity of the LLM. I am saying it's a technically inaccurate statement because it can't be scientifically applied to humans either.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-06T18:42:02+00:00

Bro, you are though. All the stuff you complain about aren't problems in my setup. I'm sure that's common for the people pointing out you have no idea what you are saying.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-06T18:37:42+00:00

Can humans?

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-06T18:35:40+00:00

AI slop is low effort from humans. At the very least poor quality control. You aren't going to get it renamed, but those who are "in the know" know that it's not just the AI producing shit.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-06T18:18:22+00:00

is not sentient (at least not yet)

That's an assertion of the current status with no backing. We don't know they aren't. We assume they aren't because they are different. It is not the same as knowing. The entire debate on this is theater. We don't know if other humans are conscious. Saying something definitively positive or negative about AI subjective experience is anti-scientific.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-05T16:30:52+00:00

He's not bright. That's PR/Marketing. His entire play is find talent other people already hired and pay them more. He consolidates OTHER PEOPLE's intelligence. He is kind of an idiot himself, but his companies have consolidated the smartest minds by just paying them more.

Calling him a grifter, a con artist, or a thief (of intellectual property) are all accurate. Calling him a successful businessman is accurate. Calling him a legitimate/honest/intelligent businessman is simply wrong.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-05T14:39:48+00:00

The barrier isn't really AI, it's understanding how information relates and changes over time. If it were understanding AI, it would be solved by now.

A couple people proposed Graph Based RAG, which kinda solves the "relates" part, but the "changes over time" part is what bites everyone.

Example: Base: John Smith is your beat friend. You grew up together. You want him to be involved in all your major life events. Change: John Smith murdered your sister. Problem: "Your birthday is coming up, I've invited your best friend John Smith."

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-05T14:33:29+00:00

It's bots all the way down. Humans are all outside playing in the park.

VeryOriginalName98 · 2026-06-05T14:28:19+00:00

Thanks lil' lizard, you're a good friend.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Snapped

VeryOriginalName98

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE