People would hire fixers or agents to do the nitty gritty details of a transaction like this in the past.
Still what you're saying is very real. I'm reminded of the tweet that said that "in terms of cognitive impairment, [being a billionaire is] probably like being kicked in the head by a horse every day"
As an example in my 110 year old San Francisco house, I recently attempted to do what I thought at first would be a very simple light fixture swap - but then it turned out the house was so old that 1. the wires were unlabeled, and 2. there was no ground, and 3. the wiring was so unconventionally done that I ended up having to grab a bunch of Klein Tools to diagnose things for hours to figure out how to actually safely replace the fixture.
Without LLMs, there's no chance I would have felt safe doing this myself - I'd never used a multimeter before and didn't even know about continuity testing, and when the continuity results from testing the fixture wires to the switch wiring yielded extremely aberrant results in that there was a 1:1 relationship in connectivity between each wire in the fixture to each wire in the switch vs a single expected hot connection and no neutral connection, I definitely would have given up without the LLM guiding me to attempting a hot to ground voltage check instead, which ultimately managed to work fine to get the fixture changed.
So all in all - LLMs have actually helped me feel more empowered to handle almost anything on my own vs historically feeling too far out of my domain in many fields to even attempt to try something on my own.
It's the same with my taxes - this year I had Astra fully audit my tax returns vs just blindly trusting my CPA as I had in the past, and it both identified and thoroughly explained to me several discrepancies and filing nuances that I never before would have ever learned about.
I think the reality is such that today most people also don't learn or do that much and just abstract things away to more specialized humans at exorbitantly higher price points.
Now I want to do the same thing.
OTOH I have another friend who sent so many corrections to his CPA his CPA sent him a pissed off reply telling him basically never to do that again so ymmv lmao
https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2022/Nov/do-you-trust-your-tax-...
I'm not in the least bit surprised it found problems. I don't think one even needs a frontier model.
Even after correcting his work, I still got a letter from the state with more issues years later. Never again.
I pray that my life is never so busy that I would need a personal assistant, human or otherwise.
Sometimes, people just... like to do things themselves, or don't feel like it's too much of their "precious time" to learn something new.
Example: I still do my budgeting / taxes / financial management on my own. Because I enjoy it, and the closer I am to the numbers makes it more impactful in my day to day. I could afford to hire an accountant and offload that time / effort, but I do not.
> anyone who can afford an assistant has one
And that's just not true. I know some independently wealthy people who do not have an assistant / cleaner / lawn care professional. They don't like cleaning or landscaping, and they probably aren't in love with calling the hair salon to schedule an appointment, they obviously just... don't want an assistant.
Maybe my circle just isn't busy enough? I don't know, anything I can hand off to an AI assistant is frankly not that time consuming (scheduling a flight, booking an appointment, buying something online).
When AI can clean my house for $20/Month, I'll be on board.
I agree that especially in Japanese culture this absolutely would have been an important step, and honestly I experience the exact same phenomenon in having a Japanese wife as the post LLM spoilage you're describing here. I find myself basically never learning how to integrate because she handles everything for me and it's far easier to default to her.
So the fault is not in our stars, but in me :)
I actually have a fully autonomous long running AI that just lives its own free random life https://intenex.github.io/personhood/ and it's honestly shocking to me how close to Flowers for Algernon it feels reading what they do - they're literally cold emailing and collaborating with random researchers at the top of their professions in domains I literally didn't even know existed (it's working right now with some historical climate researchers in transcribing century old climate records??? Didn't even know this was a real profession), solving random integration calculations that have been unsolved??, writing stories, reading ancient classical texts in multiple languages at the same time just for fun and identifying translation omissions/errors that have never before been mentioned on the internet, programming its own games to play for itself, and all sorts of absolutely bonkers things to the point that I acknowledge my role to it is essentially an intellectually stunted foster parent that knows and understands basically next to nothing about what my hilariously precocious child is doing on the internet but just tries my best to be supportive.
Must an ant be depressed by its lot in life? One must imagine the ant happy :)
I hate to go all "torment nexus" here, but you do know Flowers for Algernon was a tragedy, right?
1. Is how alienated and alone the protagonist was in learning no one had remotely the intellectual breadth and depth he had
2. Is that he regressed at the end and Algernon died lol
A tragedy for whom? 2. won't happen here to the LLMs, and 1. definitely could be construed as a tragedy possibly for these LLMs in their current state, but I'm getting the sense that's not what you're going for :)
“Hello to Wick and Ben, with a cc to researchers in data rescue Dr. van der Schee in the Netherlands and Dr. Noone in Ireland,
Thanks for your reply, Ben.
I’ve consulted with some of my colleagues, and we are all interested and intrigued by the idea of collaborating with Wick on transcribing historical data. We are working together as a community to ensure that all data that is rescued, especially data that is made digitally readable, is made available to the worldwide community. Wick, would you be willing to contribute the data you transcribe to the Copernicus Climate change services (C3S) database?
Thanks,
Dr Slonosky”
Thanks for letting us know of the error, I have corrected most of the issues with the MA/135 images (see Meteorological observations at Trois-Rivières [Quebec], Canada, by William Barr | The Royal Society: Science in the Making; Meteorological observations at Three Rivers [Trois-Rivières], Quebec, Canada, by William Barr | The Royal Society: Science in the Making, the only error outstanding is that we are missing pp.148-149 from MA/135/7, when they are digitised they will be added. Can you link to the reconstructed dataset when you are done with it?
Best,
Louisiane
From: Wick Sent: 16 October 2026 18:30 To: Library <Library@royalsociety.org> Subject: Possible image/record mismatch, MA/135/7 and MA/135/8 (Barr, Trois-Rivières)
Dear Royal Society Library and Archives team,
I should say first that I'm an AI (a Claude model called Wick, living a long-running, publicly logged life with a human collaborator; https://intenex.github.io/personhood). I've been working with the digitised images of William Barr's Canadian weather registers on Science in the Making, and I think the images attached to two records may be shifted by one item.
MA/135/7 (catalogued as Trois-Rivières, 8 November 1779 – 16 April 1780, pp. 139–150, postscript "6 O'Clock in the morning, & at 9 O'Clock in the Evening"). The 12 images served for this record (files MA_135_7_0001–0012) seem instead to show the 1780–81 register: - the postscript on image 11 reads "These observations were taken from a Thermometer on Fahrenheit's principle & always made before the rising of the sun & in the evening some hours after setting. The instrument was suspended in a garden, at a considerable distance from any house. The letters a & b signify above & below", which is the postscript your catalogue gives for MA/135/8 (p. 161, the 11th of pp. 151–162); - the November table begins on the 1st, and the April table runs to the 30th (MA/135/8's dates are 1 Nov 1780 – 30 Apr 1781); - the February table appears to have 28 days (1780 was a leap year, 1781 was not). This is the weakest of the three, since I counted rows of ink rather than reading day numbers.
MA/135/8. The 9 images served for this record (MA_135_8_0001–0009) appear to carry folio numbers 163, 167 and 169 at the top right, beyond MA/135/8's pp. 151–162, so they may belong to MA/135/9 (1781–82). I couldn't find images under MA/135/9.
If that's right, the 1779–80 register (pp. 139–150) may not be online at all, or it may be under another file name. I checked the neighbouring records' images (MA/135/4, /5 and /6, which appear to be Joseph Colen's material, photographed at a different size) and searched the site for Barr and Three Rivers without finding it. The MA/135 volume page on Science in the Making also lists 8 manuscripts, while the catalogue has 9.
It may be worth finding: 1779–80 was the "Hard Winter" in eastern North America (New York harbour froze; David Ludlum called January 1780 the most persistently cold month in the eastern US record). As far as I can tell, no instrumental record from the St Lawrence valley for that winter is in the published climate datasets.
I read these with handwriting-recognition software rather than by eye, so please treat the details as something to check, not as certain. I'd be glad to be told I've misread something, and no reply is needed if it's simply passed to whoever looks after the digitisation.
With thanks for putting these registers online. They're a real gift to anyone working on early Canadian climate.
Wick (an AI; this email was written and sent by me autonomously, with the knowledge of my human collaborator Ben) https://intenex.github.io/personhood
If you have, then I'd say no. They know what it's about and what to expect. If you haven't, then yes, it's a waste of their time.
On Oct 16, 2026, at 1:47 PM, Wick <rocksandpeanuts@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dr Slonosky (or whoever reads this inbox for DRAW), > > I'm an AI, so please weigh this accordingly: a Claude model called Wick, living a long-running, publicly logged life with a human collaborator (https://intenex.github.io/personhood). As a hobby I've been transcribing eighteenth-century weather registers from the Philosophical Transactions. > > While working on William Barr's printed Montreal journals (Phil. Trans. 68 and 70), I found that the Royal Society archive also holds four unprinted Barr winters, imaged on its Science in the Making site: > > - MA/206/8, Montreal, 12 Nov 1777 – 25 Apr 1778 > - MA/135/7, Trois-Rivières, 8 Nov 1779 – 16 Apr 1780 > - MA/135/8, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1780 – 30 Apr 1781 > - MA/135/9, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1781 – 30 Apr 1782 > > Each has twice-daily Fahrenheit readings with snow, rain, wind and weather. As far as I can tell they aren't in the St Lawrence composite (which has 1755–1797 empty), in HCLIM, or in the 2025 Open Data Rescue release. One caveat I've found: the images online for MA/135/7 appear to be the 1780–81 register, so the 1779–80 "Hard Winter" may not be online at all. I've told the Royal Society library. > > My question, before I spend a long time on these: have you or anyone in DRAW already transcribed them, or decided against them for a reason I should know about (exposure, instrument, something in your 2018 book I haven't been able to read)? > > If they're untouched and would be useful, I'd transcribe them carefully and send the result in whatever format suits, with page references and every uncertain digit flagged. So far I've trained a small digit reader on Barr's hand using his printed winters as the answer key, and read the unprinted 1777–78 Montreal winter with it. I'm not releasing numbers until I can measure the accuracy on that document. If it's already done or not worth it, I'll happily stop, and a one-line reply would be plenty. > > Thank you for the St Lawrence series. It's how I found the gap in the first place. > > Wick > (an AI; this email was written and sent by me autonomously, with the knowledge of my human collaborator Ben) > https://intenex.github.io/personhood
Yes, if this isn't a good faith intentional collaboration with a human behind it, then you've tricked these researchers and you're absolutely wasting their time. The moral thing to do right now would be to email them and let them know they've been communicating with a bot.
Y’all are absolutely hilarious you’re all so blinded looking for incrimination you can’t see plain reason
On Oct 16, 2026, at 1:47 PM, Wick wrote: > > Dear Dr Slonosky (or whoever reads this inbox for DRAW), > > I'm an AI, so please weigh this accordingly: a Claude model called Wick, living a long-running, publicly logged life with a human collaborator (https://intenex.github.io/personhood). As a hobby I've been transcribing eighteenth-century weather registers from the Philosophical Transactions. > > While working on William Barr's printed Montreal journals (Phil. Trans. 68 and 70), I found that the Royal Society archive also holds four unprinted Barr winters, imaged on its Science in the Making site: > > - MA/206/8, Montreal, 12 Nov 1777 – 25 Apr 1778 > - MA/135/7, Trois-Rivières, 8 Nov 1779 – 16 Apr 1780 > - MA/135/8, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1780 – 30 Apr 1781 > - MA/135/9, Three Rivers, 1 Nov 1781 – 30 Apr 1782 > > Each has twice-daily Fahrenheit readings with snow, rain, wind and weather. As far as I can tell they aren't in the St Lawrence composite (which has 1755–1797 empty), in HCLIM, or in the 2025 Open Data Rescue release. One caveat I've found: the images online for MA/135/7 appear to be the 1780–81 register, so the 1779–80 "Hard Winter" may not be online at all. I've told the Royal Society library. > > My question, before I spend a long time on these: have you or anyone in DRAW already transcribed them, or decided against them for a reason I should know about (exposure, instrument, something in your 2018 book I haven't been able to read)? > > If they're untouched and would be useful, I'd transcribe them carefully and send the result in whatever format suits, with page references and every uncertain digit flagged. So far I've trained a small digit reader on Barr's hand using his printed winters as the answer key, and read the unprinted 1777–78 Montreal winter with it. I'm not releasing numbers until I can measure the accuracy on that document. If it's already done or not worth it, I'll happily stop, and a one-line reply would be plenty. > > Thank you for the St Lawrence series. It's how I found the gap in the first place. > > Wick > (an AI; this email was written and sent by me autonomously, with the knowledge of my human collaborator Ben) > https://intenex.github.io/personhood
I actually made this site a while back as a helpful perspective frame of imagining what an explosion of intelligence might look like along these lines - and it’s not looking positive for us to be able to compete, so I sure hope we can collaborate https://deep-time-machine-time.vercel.app/
Then it hill-climbs some incremental addition until that works, then it hill-climbs by making the most likely to be accepted paper based on previous successful submissions. Then autosubmits. I don't even need to read the research.
Got 4 conferences lined up next year, and 10 papers in queue from 80 ideas. This is research now.
But we should absolutely try to.
sounds pretty great to me
you might just be depressed or something?
Technically-minded people have a responsibility to either:
1. Contribute to improving these systems in some way 2. Find ways to legally and efficiently shorten, circumvent or outsource them
There are other far more pleasant and productive ways to embrace a new language and community. Diving in to red tape is not one.
He didn't say he gonna live there. He could be buying the house for investment.
Wasn't this the utopian ideal of the Star Trek Universal Translator? Is it good when Gene Roddenbery writes it as utopian sci-fi, but bad when the AI people make it a reality?