I remember back before I realized just how full of shit Siskind was I used to buy into some of the narrative re: “credentialism” so I understand the way they’re trying to sell it here. But even extending far more benefit than mere doubt can justify we’re still looking at yet another case of trying to create a (pseudo)scientific solution to a socially constructed problem. Like, if the problem is that bosses and owners are trying to find the best candidate we don’t need new and exciting ways to discriminate; they could just actually invest in a process for doing that, but trying to actually solve that problem would inconvenience the owning/managing classes and doesn’t create opportunities to further entrench racial biases in the system. Clearly using an AI-powered version of the punchline for “how racist were the old times” commentary is better.

I would assume nothing stops them but I would love to get an analysis of why they may not be looking into this from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. Best I can come up with from a complete layman’s perspective is that they’re concerned about the valuation they’d end up with. Not sure if the retail market had enough juice to actually pay for a company that is hypothetically one of the most valuable companies in the world, and puncturing that narrative might bring the whole bubble down (in a way that costs a lot of normal investors their shirts, of course).

Between this and the IPO talk it seems like we’re looking at some combination of trying to feel out exit strategies for the bubble they’ve created, trying to say whatever stuff keeps the “OpenAI is really big” narrative in the headlines, and good old fashioned business idiocy.

I feel like the private leaderboards are also more in keeping with the spirit of the thing. You can’t really have a friendly competition with a legion of complete strangers that you have no interaction with outside of comparing final times. Even when there’s nothing on the line the consequences for cheating or being a dick are nonexistent, whereas in a a private group you have to deal with all your friends knowing you’re an asshole going forward.

As usual the libertarians are saying “democratize” when they mean “commodify”.

Yeah, after establishing a deeply tortured chess metaphor and beating it to death and beyond, Yud proceeds to just straight-up bitching about how nobody is taking his book seriously. It just fucking keeps going even as it dips into the most pathetic and hateful eugenics part of their whole ideology because of course it does.

The Forrest Gump of American Weirdos is a pretty solid description here, yeah. Also how had I not heard about the fucking Rajneeshis before now?

Casio and their target market are my kind of nerds. Taking a silly idea and an iconic design and pushing the engineering to its limits entirely for the bit is absolutely unhinged and I’m so happy they did it.

That is my thought as well. It’s like the “you call everyone you disagree with a Nazi” argument from the 90s and 00s - discrediting attempts to call out fascist and genocidal ideas creates a lot of cover for those ideas to spread without being appropriately checked. It helps create a situation where serious and respectable people can keep arguing that things aren’t that bad all the way until they get pushed onto a cattle car.

So the tl;dr review of grokipedia is literally “big if true.”

Amazon unveils AI-Powered AR glasses for delivery drivers.

The response I’ve seen from actual drivers has been somewhere between “eh? I guess?” and “fuck you, pay me”.

Does anyone else get flashbacks to that episode of the Powerpuff girls where the villain takes over the city and makes a law that “crime is now legal”? Because that keeps popping into my head for some reason.

Ave! True to Flexor Digitorum!

I guess we’re moving into the “take advantage of the mentally unwell” stage of trying to figure out a way to make money off this shit, also known as the Gacha Gambit.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see how it pays off. (It pays off in human misery)

Count me as excited to see where this goes. Absolutely fascinating to see this guy dredged from the abyss of history and see how cleanly it rhymes with modern horrible. And to see that the inability of bigots to write a goddamn joke isn’t a recent loss.

Also the intro and outro compilations were beautiful. Very well done.

Have they checked him for scurvy? Apparently scurvy can be a problem for these asshats.

That sounds really neat for all of 30 seconds before your cat knocks over their water bowl mid-fight and needs your immediate attention, thus reminding you why pause functions exist at all.

Scott’s Reactionary Philosophy In A Nutshell comes to mind. Also, don’t forget to plug it here once the pilot is up somewhere. Count me as very interested.

Parasitic Disruption is a great name for the overall structure. I think another way of framing it in economic terms would be to talk about the opportunity cost of innovation. Even if we take hucksters and monorail salesmen out of the picture (which is exceptionally generous steelmanning imo) we’re looking at the fact that the “disruptive” option has a whole lot of unknowns on the cost side of the sheet in terms of timeline, monetary costs, downsides and tradeoffs, etc. The upsides are also unknown, but are usually assumed to be “perfectly solves the problem”. On the other hand, the boring, well-understood option is going to have very specific answers to those questions. That skews the discussion strongly against actually doing anything, and creates a lot of room for the aforementioned grifters to work.

I think this framing also gives us some tools to fight back. You can easily turn those unknowns into horror stories of boondoggles past, and focus on the major advantage of being able to start today. The opposite of state-of-the-art is rarely “unusably antiquated” and the cost of leaving the problem - be it energy independence, mass rapid transit, or whatever - unsolved and festering is something we can push.

I mean that’s the fundamental problem, right? No matter how much better it gets, the things it’s able to do aren’t really anything people need or want. Like, if I’m going to a website looking for information it’s largely because I don’t want to deal with asking somebody for the answer. Even a flawless chatbot that can always provide the information I need - something that is far beyond the state of the art and possibly beyond some fundamental limitation of the LLM structure - wouldn’t actually be preferable to just navigating a smooth and well-structured site.