How does it say anything about the stochastic parrot theory of LLMs?
The only thing there that seems like it's relevant is the finding that the models they used had worse results when prompted in Chinese than when prompted in English. But ...
I am fairly sure I would do substantially worse work if I had to do it in French rather than in English, even if the work itself was all mathematics and programming and the like. Maybe that in some sense indicates that I am a stochastic parrot but it clearly doesn't indicate that I'm a stochastic parrot in some way worse than human beings are since I happen to be a human being myself.
... so what am I missing, that makes the models' worse performance in Chinese an indication that they're stochastic parrots in any interesting sense?
(I take it that "they're stochastic parrots just like we are" is not a very interesting sense. I mean, actually it would be quite interesting to understand better how much of human thinking can be reasonably described as stochastic-parroting -- fairly clearly the amount isn't zero -- but I think it would be interesting as a finding in human psychology, not as a fact about LLMs.)
3- Also, this is rebroadcasting, technically a textbook definition of piracy even when that content might normally be obtained for free, especially if the content began encrypted.
(Because some laws are stupid. Please support right to repair and DMCA reform.)
Four years in, I'm still waiting for a single example of this oft-repeated claim stated as fact.
The only industry I have first-hand experience in is software development, and LLMs are certainly not changing that "entirely". The implementation of quick, throwaway PoCs, maybe, but that ain't an industry.
"I think we as humans (I'm saying we as in probably the majority from my point of view and understanding of what the majority of people who visit this website likely think about this and how their ethical viewpoints likely align with my opinion that I am about to present however there may be a minority or some part of people that do not agree with what I am about to write therefore it is crucial that I make this clear before I go on with my point here)"
Whether Jev is something architecturally different from an LLM (bidirectional vs auto-regressive? different type of parallel readout head?) remains to be seen, or guessed, but LLMs are certainly fungible and are competing on price - they leapfrog each other from release to release, but overall they are all progressing in unison.
When it comes to the high volume market of business automation, it seems that ultra-low cost, rather than expensive frontier intelligence, is exactly what you want, and low latency is also nice to have for customer-facing applications like customer service chatbots.
> the only practical way of getting to another star system, even in the far far future, is a generation ship travelling 50+ years one way with a significant risk of people dying from organ failure or cancer along the route
1) The first mission would almost certainly be a set of robotic probes (especially in light of recent developments)
2) As controversial as it may be, we could genetically engineer descendants who are better suited for space travel
3) Cybernetics hold the potential to preserve the biological human 'essence' (brain and nervous system) while minimizing the amount of living material requiring maintenance
4) Hibernation is still a possibility, or at least we haven't ruled it out yet
When you're looking at long enough time spans - which we should have available if we manage to avoid extincting ourselves - many more possibilities emerge beyond simply "put a bunch of regular humans as we currently are into a tin can".
Europe is still going through the hangover from the last night's party - automobile industry, consumer appliances, heavy machinery, democracy, globalism, tourism, single market, EU policies and so on. They are yet to wake up to whatever happened over the past few decades. To be fair, Europe is not a single country or has strong central control like Anerica does.
The semantics they are trained on include latent representations of the world that are superior to any pre-existing PL corpus. That is my guess and it's not any less rigorous than your guess.
Honestly, the AI tone makes me wonder if there's any truth behind the story or its just a hallucination. You'd probably be better off making grammar errors, or simply asking AI to list your errors and explain to you why they are wrong.
You're right. I was primarily thinking of the Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services Visa category. It's another common visa category.
I don't think most of them would even view it as "wiping out most of humanity". Like much of the past, it is simply a complete ignorance of the circumstances of the lower classes. They have everything, and they assume that everyone else that is worthy has what they need too, just like they do. They are oblivious to the suffering that their selfishness has wrought. They might even believe that it is an inevitable tragedy. So don't get me wrong, I don't believe these ultrawealthy are necessarily "eradicate humanity" evil. It is just that their desired world will come at the cost of everyone else.
As for what I would do if I inherited Elon Musk's wealth tomorrow: I would do exactly what any ultrawealthy person would do, and use the interest to live and accumulate more interest. I would very much like to engage in philanthropy and speak my views to those who would listen (but having money does not make me a better communicator). I could donate to political parties I align with. But I do not have the same drive for accumulating more assets (indeed, I would actively avoid this), so I would become progressively less wealthy than my ultrawealthy "peers" until I am only wealthy and not ultrawealthy. I would still live extremely comfortably until I die. But unless I can convince the rest of the public to fight back against those few that probably do wish to eradicate/control much of humanity through technology and asset accumulation, nothing will change.
Hell yeah, someone finally got notes right. I don’t say this lightly, but notes are supposed to be simple, fast and easily retrieved.
Apple Notes doesn’t give us nearly enough. Notion gives way too much. Obsidian is a mess. Craft, AnyType, etc are janky, gimmicky or slow.
You managed to make something simple, local, that gives us exactly the features we need for writing and finding notes and also MCP so I can point my agent to it?! I’d give you a fcking nobel prize for this lol
Claude subscription (the cheapest $20/month one) -- I very rarely hit the limits, particularly the weekly ones. But then again, the largest codebase I ever work on is 50k lines.
I'd prefer local models massively for both work and "pleasure" (I love LLMs as random cognitive sparring partners), but then again, my bank account massively disagrees :/
I would be careful treating this article as relevant in September 2026. The pace of advancement in the field is such that 6 months is relatively ancient let alone when the models in the study were released. GPT-4o was May 13, 2024. Far before November 2025 when people collectively noticed a turn in LLM value.
LLMs earlier this year were surpassing numerous health related benchmarks when scored against human physicians. Only 2 months after this nature article Harvard posted that LLMs were now outperforming ER docs when given authority to order tests. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/ai/ai-outperforms-doctors-di...
The POSIX subsystem is a box checking exercise. The reason the box was there isn't satisfied but the box was checked and Microsoft hoped that's good enough. If you need "a Unix" and they give you NT and circle the stuff about POSIX you don't go "Oh, perfect" you ask them to fix the requirements document so that you can have an actual Unix next time.
WSL is Redmond going OK yeah, here you go, an actual Unix.
But my question is unless you are privy to the negotiations happening behind closed doors with DoD, how do you know Anthropic was not making modifications to it, I doubt even the other AI companies have not had to change some things when providing the secret DoD model deployment.
Secondly you have made an absurd over the top exaggeration and blatant lies about Anthropics interaction with Palantir. You literally said Anthropic "ratted out" Palantir, a language that indicates Anthropic had some secret access to Palantir or made public something that wasn't already known. The partnership between anthropic and palantir was completely public and announced by the very same comapnies before the maduro case. And as far as public statements are known, Anthropic seems to have a specific idea of what kinds of jobs their model should be used for, and they clearly stated from start they didn't like its use for violence or violence without human oversight. They phoned Palantir as any partner would have a right to, for confirming if it was being used for killing or violence during the Maduro mission.
Your link anout summarization of thought has a line right at the end of the section where it says if the raw thought logs are required, to contact their sales team, so it is clearly a negotiable point.
How is the belief or not of ai consciousness clownish? It is a valid and pertinent question in general about all models and not just for Claude regardless of your perceived imaginary views of Anthropic.
>i spend a good amount of time on anthropic because i think that anthropic specifically, is uniquely dangerous to society and human welfare.
Here we are in moral not legal territory. So it is completely absurd to say that in a conversation right here discussing far worse companies eg Palantir CEO saying they are proud in supporting Israel's violent invasions and mass murders into its surrounding countries. Anthropic, as subject to our very discussion, is the only company among the big AI companies that seems to want to have limited dealings with the military and oversight over violent military use. They also seem to be the only major company that brings up the important question of AI consciousness. If you think Anthropic is more evil than the US government and military who has already illicilty killed millions in made up wars, then I have nothing to say. Anthropic from all that appears seems to be one of the most moral of the companies of similar scale. The only way you think Anthropic is uniquely dangerous to society is if you think mass surveillance and mass killing is great and the use of powerful AI's to assist in mass murder is even better, and opposition to these is evil. I cannot begin to think of the upside down mentality that leads to such a downright bizarre thought process.
Basically. There's a difference between someone getting hunted after by RIAA asshats for downloading an album (people may be interested to look up Steve Albini's views of piracy) and an actual industrial industry of take-content-for-free
