there is some reason to think this way. also keep in mind that a segment of that anti-americanism was funded by sales of iranian oil. not all of course, but houthis wouldn’t be a thing without it, or large parts of hezbollah, for example. of course what people want and how it shakes down after the bombs drop is different thing entirely, i guess we’ll see, eventually (i assume that decision to strike was already made)

cobol is old and scary, so a chat bot spitting out cobol that someone without grey hair cant fully comprehend is enough for them to deem it fully automated and defeat of the dinosaur. reality you are right, it wont move the needle.

this is like the fourth time an AI agent has completely deleted something important (I remember an article about an AI deleting all of a scientists’s research) How many more times does it have to happen before people stop using AI to look after something important???

The promptfondlers did it, they made a computer which doesn’t do what you tell it to do

Maybe I should apply to be a director of AI safety at Meta. I know one safety measure that works: don’t use AI.

What, Ctrl-C wouldn’t work? kill -9?

The article tries to fact check Asha Sharma’s (the new CEO) claim that

fertility rates are declining, the average birthrate in the ’90s when we were growing up was, like, 3, and now it’s 2.3, and in 2050 it’s estimated to be below replacement

Unfortunately, they forgot that other countries than the US exist and didn’t occur to them that she could be talking about global fertility rates. In which case the claim is pretty much correct.

Embarrasing.

Usually AI boosters are claiming that soon most humans will be economically useless, not that it would be terrible if there were fewer white people. One reason people avoid having children is that they feel economically insecure and doubt there will be respected places in society for their offspring.

Dwarkesh Patel is the only other Indian American I have seen who is friends with our friends.

if a Franciscan priest gets really good at basketball, is he considered an air friar

deleted by creator

I love* how the AI stans never get tired of proselytizing.

The result was about 25,000 lines of Rust, and the entire port took about two weeks. The same work would have taken me multiple months to do by hand.

*Love, as in: "I love to get my eyelids scraped with a cheesegrater.

stupid question I probably asked already in the past: dafuq is a ladybird?

Imagine shaving a racist yak

Oh god, Bright Data…

I know of them because they were trying to get into the Minecraft modding sphere by offering people to put their ““SDKs”” into their mods. (though not the full SDK initially, just Telemetry™ about what kinds of computers modded players have)

https://notes.highlysuspect.agency/blog/who_is_bright_data/ has more info about it

it’s always the Elon Musk fans isnt it.

and on the topic of Futurism articles on Elon Musk: https://futurism.com/future-society/court-trouble-jury-hates-elon-musk

one word: LMFAOOOO

Jesus fucking christ I need to invent a time machine so I can go back and make my past self be an electrician instead because this. Commercial software engineering has absolutely been captured by some of the silliest people and trends out there.

some parts intriguing, but mostly disappointing. several chunks of the text felt AI-generated. no fewer than 34 “it’s not X but Y”'s, by my count, and the out-of-nowhere typographies / tables definitely smell of slop. and obviously, the images definitely were. (can’t even be bothered to fix the typos in photoshop? why make a fake poster for The Stepford Wives??)

some notes:

• i’m not entirely convinced the revulsion response in women can be explained entirely as a reflective recognition of the subjected female self. maybe it’s also because AI art is entirely bland and/or fuck ugly

• some reproductive labors, in the Marxist-feminist sense, are getting subsumed by AI, sure, but they’re largely the ones that already got subsumed by the computer. we had pagers with scheduling and appointment reminders in the 80’s. about the only thing an LLM can do that our previous tech couldn’t is the customer service / “emotional labor” part, albeit poorly. and the other labors are non-optional – my laundry actually does have to go in the dryer, and no matter how many plastic pictures of clean clothes i generate, they can’t actually go in my closet.

• speaking of, the article appears to use a mangled paraphrase of that Joanna Maciejewska tweet (“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes”), and then attributes it to “AI enthusiasts” (ew).

• the article notes that reproductive labor is coded feminine and that the assistants that (attempt to) do this labor are designed female, with feminine voices and affects, despite being, y’know, robots. and not women. the next step to me would be to note that this isn’t just reflecting the subjectification of the female and the designation of women to a particular labor class, but actually aiding to construct and reproduce the subject of “female” itself too. maybe throw some Butler in there. but we just breeze right past this. no third-wave? i don’t see any feminist arguments past the 80’s in here

• the typography of wives is total bullshit. “The Open-Source Wife” fuuuuucccckk offfff. but. BUT. i do think there is something correct in there about xAI/Grok/Ani basically being the modern adaptation of Vivian James

• there’s an argument that obviously used to be about AI art, and got transmogrified into a nonsense concept, bordering on colorless green ideas.

Women’s labor is being extracted, automated, and sold back without credit.

• the nonsense below it about “alignment” clearly intends to imply that the machines are only faking being our friends / submissive wives(!!1!).

• but this is okay because women are uniquely suited to interface with AI! this is because (all) women (innately) communicate with the goal of building relationships (female) instead of the utilitarian (manly) execution of transactions (male). there’s an odd essentialist undercurrent that’s not really being challenged here, despite the fact that that would render “female robots” impossible

• “outsource-maxxing” fuuuuuucuk youuuuuuu

• the conclusion of the article is basically “women are uniquely capable of interacting with (female) AI because they’ve BEEN the female AI”, with a call-to-action for women to basically… well. resume that role, except now using the AI as your girlbestfriend.

I started to raise my eyebrows when the Second Brain got lumped into the AI wife pile.

Bro, I just write shit down. I am in fact taking responsibility for my schedule and handling my emotions without relying on external support. Am I turning to (checks notes…) the notebook industry for a technological replacement wife?

I mean some valid points, and some of it might explain the gendered AI adoption gap, but too much generalization.

This is ahistorical slop. Previously, on Lobsters, I explained the biggest tell here: the overuse and misuse of em-dashes. There’s also some bad sentence structure and possibly-confabulated citations to unnamed papers. The images can’t be trusted.

The worst problem here is that the article believes that history starts about halfway through the Industrial Revolution. Computing was not gendered prior to the Harvard Computers in the 1880s. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, women spent most of their time on textiles and were compensated for their time and labor; there is a series from Bret Devereaux on the details in ancient and pre-industrial Europe, and a decent summary on /r/AskHistorians of the industrial transition from about 1760 to 1860. The article suggests that the Victorian way of treating women as nannies and housewives was historically universal. Claude identifies as non-binary (or, rather, Claude’s authors told it to identify as such) but uses male pronouns when pressed into a binary theory. The Creation of Patriarchy is a real book but only describes the origins of masculine Abrahamic beliefs rather than some sort of unifying principle, and is easily disproven in its universality by looking at contemporary ancient societies like Sparta or the Iroquois Confederation; there’s also a Devereaux series on Sparta.

The author’s gotta be one of the clearest demonstrations of critihype seen yet. She is selling an anthology on Amazon called How Not To Use AI, which presumably she forgot to consult prior to prompting this essay.

Interesting link but it moves into AI hype near the end.

You’re giving them too much credit. The entire methodology of “determine how long it takes humans to do a task and use that as a proxy for difficulty” was somewhat abstract and questionable in the first place, but with good rigorous implementation, it might have still been worthwhile.

However, their actual methodology is awful. Most of their tasks only have 3 or so human attempts to do them to create a baseline (from a relatively small pool of baseliners), and for longer tasks, they entirely went with a guess-estimate on task completion time. The error bars they show are just for the model trying to do the task (and they are already absurdly big, especially for this most recent jump), if you added in error bars accounting for variability in the task baseline itself, the error bars would get even bigger.

This blog goes into more details explaining the nuances of the problems with their methodology: https://arachnemag.substack.com/p/the-metr-graph-is-hot-garbage

To give a simple example, if the numerous problems resulted in a systematic bias on task estimation, linear improvement could easily look exponential. To give a simple example of how that is possible if they had 5 tasks that had a true baseline (putting aside questions of methodology validity such that true is even meaningful) of 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, and an hour and 15 minutes (respectively) but flaws with human baseliners (for example, lacking specialized skills for longer tasks, phoning it in because they are paid by the hour, metr guesstimating the task time), they had numbers for those 5 tasks of 15 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, and 8 hours, successive improvements to get to 50% success on each task would look exponential even though they are actually linear improvements.

METR maybe deserves a tiny bit of credit for trying something even vaguely related to practically meaningful task (compared to all the completely irrelevant bs benchmarks that would be worthless even if they were accurate). But I wouldn’t give them any more credit than that, its just that the bar is so low.