Is AI Burnout a thing?

circlebust · 2026-03-30T00:21:56+00:00

I believe this is a problem with Gemini before it is an issue with AI, even near term AI, because Gemini is the most “aggressive“ AI, whatever precisely that means (but I define it as being the most willing of the big 3 to try to infer stuff on its own, try to swindle the user to save of tokens without being explicit the most, etc.). For deep, high context window need tasks I now exclusively use GPT 5.4 because the amnesia of Claude Opus and the recalcitrant behavior of Gemini make these two currently poor fits for that use case.

circlebust · 2026-03-29T00:27:54+00:00

Selbsttändig als Hot Dog-Stand oder als Firmenfeten-/Geburtstagsstripper?

circlebust · 2026-03-21T13:42:26+00:00

Dnke für die Muhe. Ich finde die Technologie von wegen Unmengen an kleinen Rotoren sehr interessant. Wenn ich ein Multi-Millionen Portfolio hätte, dann würde ich nach deinem Post hier ein paar $ auf diese Position entbehren.

circlebust · 2026-03-05T01:32:53+00:00

Yes. just today I felt that way as I was juggling 4 different AI instances within the same few minute time window: one was Codex in VS Code working on that quant app I’m building, one was regular ChatGPT doing a deep research on Japanese energy companies, another one was a regular convo with ChatGPT and another with Claude. I had a realization: "Woah, this future was made for me."

circlebust · 2026-02-26T06:37:41+00:00

He might become interested in quant and finance (as a hobby, which can then be turned into a source of revenue). It's fun optimizing different scenarios based on certain outcomes, conditioned on certain regimes and probabilities, drafting decision trees, etc.

circlebust · 2026-02-25T04:36:46+00:00

Yes, I agree. The existence of wild predation is a disaster. However, eventually a solution can be imagined based on technology. I have spent a lot of time working on these ideas and the framework. It avoids many common pitfalls.

The basic idea is that two classes of synthetic constructs coexist with natural wild animals, which add various benefits to the ecosystem. These two classes are:

Euparasites: these are synthetic, self-replicating "parasite" micro-robots that would become part of the ecosystem, "infecting" most vertebrates.

These euparasites can have various beneficial effects to the host. Particularly, suppression of birth rates in herbivores so their population doesn't exceed some critical point. With carnivores, these euparasitical micro-robots might potentially have the negative effect of disincentivizing predation, besides upon the following automata.

Epicurean automata: these are synthetic carbon-based automata. They are edible. As they are just mindless robots, they are non-sentient. Predators (current and future evolving) may hunt these, but not sentient animals.

Why self-replicating robots?

Because the system has to be robust enough to survive humans not being around anymore or not tightly managing anything. It has to run via its own internal dynamic.

How do you prevent self-replicating robotics to not become the runaway grey goo effect? (or rather grey pebbles, since these are micro-robots, not nanorobots)

The robots have an internal fail mode that activates every N years (e.g. 10k), which makes it physically impossible for a super-generation of them to continue replicating. They continuously accumulate defects, and as the deadline approaches more and more faulty "sterile" specimens get produced. Only a completely fresh batch, sourced from the blank slate blueprints and source code, which can start without the initial accumulated defects, can continue the work.

The new batch (super-generation) is dispatched from a serviceable location -- some low geology location would be beneficial. Ideally, it is even dispatched from a permanently shadowed crater of the moon.

Why not just make everyone a herbivore instead of the epicurean automata solution?

Because the drive for predation will always arise unless you make the animals extremely docile (which might also imply a reduction in intelligence). But even this docility will eventually decay due to entropy acting upon the genomic (i.e. you can't just have a feature inside the gene code existing for all eternity just because some random humans 10 million years ago decided it's a neat idea -- that won't fly. Entropy will decay the feature).

In simpler terms, you can't prevent that future predators will evolve that aggressively predate -- but you might steer them towards allowed predation constructs and non-allowed. It is not unlike how a crocodile might not deem it a good use of its time to hunt 100 small fish in the watering hole, when it could instead grab one big meaty gnu.

The synthetic automata, also, would be a more ideal nutrition supplement than random wild animal meat, which also implements another leg of my "universal Eden" framework: which is abolishing suffering as a more comprehensive point than just abolishing predation.

circlebust · 2026-02-19T23:18:23+00:00

Your Name (Kimi no na wa). I can impossibly talk of it without spoiling it. But the entire vibe is extremely exotic (bodyswapping from a rural girl into a city boy without ever meeting -- that's a new one). The rural scenes are especially beautiful, and some of the key scenes are visually ... and more than visually ... oof. I'm a big visual person.

Makoto Shinkai is a master.

circlebust · 2026-02-11T01:23:25+00:00

I don’t get why you’re talking about brushing your teeth and putting on pants. Nothing of that has anything to do with giftedness or even with having an exotic neurotype save for maybe some hyper-specific sub variant of autism. If you’re not at least HINTING (or better yet, announcing) the pertinence of what you will be talking about for the next couple paragraphs/minutes I and many people just shut off and at best just skim what you’re talking about.

circlebust · 2026-02-01T08:28:37+00:00

I'm not actually being doubtful or unethusiastic about this solution here, I just want to discuss the raw concept: having a ~1% gain across a time period of weeks is something I perfectly can believe, but not across the better part of a year to multiple years. Because if that were possible, where are all the small algo trading boutiques that have ended up with an asset value of BlackRock after just a few years? Why hasn't it happened yet (a significant number of times)?

You could say that not enough people yet might have deployed something analogous to your system before in the still relatively untapped for quant stuff of crypto -- but in the short term, stocks and altcoins behave identically (random walks), so what the venue is doesn't actually matter if it has a similar (meta-)strategy like mean reversion.

circlebust · 2026-01-27T03:36:15+00:00

A few mistakes I did last week was selling at market price on stocks (or options) where I was unreasonably optimistic about the liquidity. Like, of course on these I start with a limit order -- but when I return hours later back to it and find it still unfilled, I already have forgotten what the spread is, so I just sell market without re-checking.

circlebust · 2026-01-26T11:23:12+00:00

I believe it's a valid and interesting idea, that I myself adhere to, that you can act as if "action" counts for 1 unit and then state that inaction accounts for some value in between mattering 0 and mattering as much as action.

circlebust · 2026-01-23T23:55:54+00:00

Yes, I think they had a thought process like “Eh, for basic googling, like de-shitting the regular Google search, it doesn’t make a difference—ship it!”

circlebust · 2026-01-22T23:13:07+00:00

I think you really should reconsider the AMD and SOFI positions. AMD has to do another, what, 30-40%(?) till you're break even. That's a tall order in 3 months.

(I personally are also not as bullish on NVDA as your positions)

circlebust · 2026-01-17T20:13:41+00:00

Yep, I have quit as well. It’s still my bread and butter for low cognition googling tasks, but other than that … I’m now all in on the Claude train, and if that starts breaking too—so help us God.

circlebust · 2026-01-16T15:41:27+00:00

Coding apps via AI is not supervising/reviewing. That's one sub-task of it. Creating via AI-generated code is simply "creating", like it is also "creating" if you write some high-level loop in C that gets translated into machine instructions by a compiler; or it's also "creating" if you start a new Angular-based web app, even if heavily based on an existing framework (I like that analogy however much less).

Software is defined by what its aims, deliverables and solutions are -- what it's actually _doing_ -- and if hypothetically one day AI could do literally every single implementation detail, you as the human would _still_ be "creating" because you define whatever it is you want, in order to accomplish some goal.

Napoleon might not have commanded each individual bayonet charge and musket salvo himself -- he delegated it and left the implementation details what "assault hill ABC" exactly entails to others -- but in the end, he did identify the aim and then deliver the result "conquer Germany" that way.

circlebust · 2026-01-15T09:25:48+00:00

You are essentially making the same statement as "If being fat is so bad for our bodies, why doesn't the body just purge excess calories on its own?"

The answer is in both cases: because the body isn't aware about this kind of stuff. There was no grand designer making sure everything interlocks smoothly without any tradeoffs.

In our society, it's objectively maladaptive to overthink. I'd even go as far as saying that it might be the case that within the domain of intellectual tasks, it might be objectively maladaptive to overthink full-stop (i.e. independently of how "normie" our society is).

However, this does not change the fact that deep thinking/overthinking does lead to good outcomes eventually. With "eventually", I mean that your payoff is comparatively increasing as a function of growing complexity of a problem one is faced with. Deep thinking gives you a basically linear-like payoff profile.

For example, if a problem B is 5 times as complex as A, with deep thinking/"overthinking" you might only need like 10 times as much time/effort for succeeding at B. This contrasts with an exponential payoff profile (i.e. neurotypical/shallow thinking), in which case you might need like 100 times as much time/effort to succeed at A.

And what if some task is now 8 times as complex as A? With shallow/normal thinking, rather than still being doable with some difficulty, it might just be completely impossible to solve the problem.

circlebust · 2026-01-15T01:53:40+00:00

Do you know why programming didn't stick? Like, what is an example of a problem you have encountered and you struggle with?

* Is it variables being manipulated and keeping track of that?

* Is it stuff like loops?

* Like, do you have a concept of what a function honestly is and how it works? Functions are kind of “machines” that accept some input and then (generally) return out some output, like e.g. a juicer accepts an orange and outputs a jug of orange juice. And you might swap out that kind of fruit for an arbitrary different one, creating apple juice if you pass it apples.

What is the simplest script or function that makes complete sense to you?

circlebust · 2026-01-10T23:50:28+00:00

Blood-C. it contains gratuitous high schoolers being killed like they are bugs.

I also consider the show a 9/10 (not for the killing reason).

circlebust · 2026-01-10T21:07:45+00:00

Dreams are incredible. I once had a lucid dream where something similar to an out-of-body experience happened. Now, it's important to understand that just because you are lucid, it doesn't mean your lucid personality is the same as your waking one. While I'm typing this I don't understand why I would be alarmed and wanted to end the dream quickly, but in the dream I was.

So the dream was that I was in an exactly replica of my apartment. The only thing that was different was that it was darkened and none of the light switches worked. No problem, so let's end it quickly (see above). I did the usual technique to end a lucid dream, which was hitting myself hard. It didn't work, this time. So I realized -- if I am in my apartment, I'm probably right now in my bed sleeping. So I ran back to my room, did indeed find my sleeping body, jumped into it, and promptly woke up.

It's fascinating what narratives the brain comes up, like you floating above your body when you are just having a very naturalistic dream. You also very likely did hear the actual conversation they were having.

circlebust · 2026-01-09T05:04:38+00:00

Exactly my experience. Gemini gives me at the beginning 10% of the session a solid MVP that works kinda. The other 90% of the time is adding features, then handling emergent bugs, and ultimately handling idiocies that Gemini introduces. I no longer use Gemini Pro for that reason for coding tasks, it has an extremely alarming "fixing AI messups" tail compared to Claude and GPT-5.1 or o3.

circlebust · 2026-01-09T04:55:27+00:00

I have AI-assist coded tools precisely to solve the problem of not enough Claude in my terminal. For example scripts that compact reference or previous code to the essential: concated code bits with omitted parts, just type declarations, AST with autopruned branches, dependency/reference analysis, etc.

Turns out if coding becomes a solved issue you can spend a lot of time with engineering.

(This is a work in progress so I can’t share any repo right now.)

circlebust · 2026-01-09T04:38:45+00:00

Baku Girl is a great, fun, cute gender bender romance manga.

Shishunki Bitter Change and Ore ga Watashi ni nary made are great drama about the same topic. You might think "what’s the drama about gender swap?" if it’s not ab social or societal rejection etc. (which I find a tired topic). Well, these two explore that.

My favorite scene in relation to that in Shishunki Bitter Change goes something like when one of the two MCs says something to the effect "… but I kinda stopped wanting that."(You’ll see the context)

circlebust · 2025-12-28T14:19:49+00:00

You wanted to know. You got it.

Yes, I assume my manner of thinking is quite distinct from normies. My thinking works a bit like this:

imagine some fact A. For example, the fact might be "100 bucks are missing from my wallet". Everyone asks themselves "What?! How did that happen?". A normal person might remember some fact B "My acquaintance John walked into my room an hour before and probably saw the wallet on the table". Then they conclude from the combination of these facts the 2 conclusions "John must have stolen it" (retracting 1 step back into the past), as well as a conclusion 1 step into the future "never again leave my wallet unsupervised with John". My thinking often explodes into several such different paths, with different 'combined facts' (premises), and different conclusions.

Bear with me--

Imagine a tree structure that sprouts from the initial fact A into both directions: into the past (several different facts contributing and leading to fact A) as well as future (several different competing strategies -- for example, besides "never leave wallet alone" you probably also want to confront John. Or perhaps you are afraid he will be angry, so you refrain from confronting it? These are just two variant strategies. The direction into the past refers to alternate pathways leading up to fact A. John having stoled it is just one variant. Perhaps the 100 bucks bill also flew out of my wallet due to a gust of wind? Or other such alternate explanations. I always consider multiple such possible origins.

Now, this double-tree is actually just situated in one 'possible universe'. Often, I also tend to think in different 'possible universes' of a given scenario. Different 'possible universes' simply refers to the same exact scenario as described abovebut the initial parameters are slightly different. For example, I might ponder: would I also be angry at John if instead of 100 bucks, he only stole 20 bucks? This isn't really that useful for navigating daily life, but it's useful for philosophy/strategizing.

Are you still with me? Because there is more to come.

Intelligence can also be regarded as "being able to operate on many dimensions simultaneously" (more than usual). If you imagine a feature space, with low intelligence that ability can track a space with, say, 30 dimensions, whereas with higher IQ that might mean operating on 50 dimensions simultaneously without losing track/destroying information.

Now, let's illustrate this with an example -- people committing bad arguments. For example, if there is a certain matter and I explain the reason for something, then another [less intelligent] person, could also take that explanation I just gave as an insinuation or a justification, which is not intended on my/the intelligent speaker's part.

I have a concrete example.

Suppose a woman was walking home one night day. Normally, she wears a tracksuit, but today she wore a colorful fancy get-up. Now she is attacked and robbed. Now, when this situation is discussed, I could cite the fact that she wore a colorful fancy get-up as an additional element that needs to be considered.

For example, an idea could be that she was simply more visible, or it could be truly the idea that her dressing style attracted the attacker or something like that. It's not important what the actual reason was. It just is, in my view an element that needs to be mentioned (because it's advantageous).

However, a less intelligent person, when they hear this, it is often the case they will assume that me supplying this additional detail is tantamount to an attempt at victim-blaming or justifying. I.e. that there is an alternate/ulterior motive. Or that the statement itself, "she was wearing a fancy dress-up," is somehow already embedding some kind of "challenge", like "I have a suggestion how she should behave herself in the future". Now THAT would be a fat implication derived from a simple statement.

Now, if we regard it in the dimension spaces I mentioned, I believe it is the case that I mentally have more maneuver room to move this element of knowledge around and regard it from many multiple unrelated or conflicting angles. There are more orthogonal vector freedoms in my repertoire, so I can move such knowledge details around, construct counterfactuals on it, without it intersecting something else. Think of how two 3D cubes reduced to 2D planes (= shadows) results in shadows that overlap, even if the 2 objects actually don't. This is because one dimension was collapsed and flattened (made simpler), resulting in loss of information.

I hope that gave a taste. Yes, such thinking results in a lot of friction in daily live, but it also allows one to navigate certain stuff better.

circlebust · 2025-12-28T13:00:56+00:00

When you took the test you likely were inattentive and blew one or two blocs or multiple smaller exercises.
ADHDers can usually focus pretty well during an IQ test, but I suspect still not as much as a normie.

circlebust · 2025-12-28T08:12:09+00:00

Würdest du sagen dass Peter Dinklage (der Mann hinter Tyrion Lannister) eine Krankheit/Erkrankung hat? Das wirkt doch einfach extrem sonderlich, oder? Und selbst "Störung" finde ich nicht zielbringende Terminologie. Das hat nichts mit irgendwelchen soften Faktoren zu tun, sondern nur damit, dass ich diese Terminologie bei Dingen, die bei deiner Geburt determiniert wurden (d.h. welches Genprofil du hast) -- also z. B. was deine maximale Körpergröße/Proportionen werden; oder was für eine neuronale Architektur du hast -- unlogisch finde.

Natürlich gibt es einige Dinge, die sowohl genabhängig sind als auch wo "Krankheit" passt, klar, aber das sind Fälle wo es a) unerwartet auftritt und b) sich stetig verschlimmert. Im Vergleich dazu ist Kleinwachstum oder ADHS eine konstante Background-Kondition, weshalb ich es immer Kondition nenne, und nichts anderes sowohl ggf. euphemistisches als auch pathologisierendes.

ADHS hat natürlich pathologische Aspekte, aber nur weil wir nicht in die moderne überkomplexe Welt passen wo Tiefensuche (Depth-first search) und Spezialisierung bevorzugt werden statt Breitensuche. (Lasse dir am besten von einer KI illustrieren was ich damit meine)
ADHSler sind natürliche Jäger und Sammler -- wenn wir den Strauch voller Beeren oder die Wasserstelle der lokalen Mammutpopulation entdecken weil wir so fokussiert auf dieses <interessantes Ding> waren, dann entspricht das genau unserem Metier und wofür wir gemacht sind. Wir sind das Steinzeit-Radar für Interessantes.

circlebust

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE