-__---____-ZXyw

https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2025/trust-att...

The results are largely negative, while the language in the report is strangely positive. Along the lines of - of course AI will solve lots of problems and is "the future", but yes, it might be true that the masses haven't realised that yet.

Such a strange timeline. Some of the largest ever investments into stuff people don't trust or enjoy, and still, you will have your AI future, regardless.

A wonderful observation.

Has someone made a stab at describing these new paradigms of advertising and value? I don't think I've seen exactly this stated or named, but there's a lot of writing and thinking out there. If it strikes anyone reading this, links welcome.

Specifically, it seems like advertising may have gone from "the quality of the product doesn't matter", to "the product existing doesn't matter". Quite a big leap.

If you aren't already, I suggest making sure to not forget, every 3-5 prompts, to throw in: "no waffling", "no flattery", "no obsequious garbage", etc. You can make it as salty as you like. If the AI says "Have fun!", or "Let's get coding!", you know you need to get the whip out haha.

Also, "3 sentences max on ...", "1 sentence explaining ...", "1 paragraph max on ...".

Another improvement for me was, you want to do procedure x in situation y, so you go "I'm in situation y, I'm considering procedure x, but I know I've missed something. Tell me what I could have missed". Or "list specific scenarios in which procedure x will lead to catastrophe".

Accepting the tool as a fundamentally dumb synthesiser and summariser is the first step to it getting a lot more useful, I think.

All that said, I use it pretty rarely. The revolution in learning we need is with John Holt and similar thinkers from that period, and is waiting to happen, and won't be provided by the next big tech thing, I fear.

1. In a couple of contexts, as a non-expert, I'm getting excellent use out of these LLM tools, because I'm imaginative and creative in my use of them.

2. I get such great use out of them, as a non-expert, in these areas, that any expert claiming they are gimmicks, is simply wrong. They just need to get more imaginative and creative, like me.

Am I misunderstanding you here? Is this really what you're saying?

The holes in the thinking seem obvious, if I may be blunt. I would suggest you ask an LLM to help you analyse it, but I think they're quite bad at that, as they are programmed to reflect your biases back at you in a positive way. The largest epistemic issue they have is probably that - it is only possible to overcome this tendency to placate the user if the user has great knowledge of their biases, an issue even the best experts face!

Please consider that there are some very clever people out there. I can respond to your point about languages personally - I speak three, and have lived and operated for extended periods in two others which I wouldn't call myself "fluent" in as it's been a number of years. I would not use an LLM to generate images for each word, as I have methods that I like already that work for me, and I would consider that a wasteful use of resources. I am into permacomputing, minimising resources, etc.

When I see you put the idea forward, I think, oh, neat, but surely it'd be much more effective if you did a 30s sketch for each word, and improved your drawing as you went.

In summary - do read the article, it's very good! You're responding to an imagined argument based on a headline, ignoring a nuanced and serious argument, by saying: "yeah, but I use it well, so?! It's not a gimmick then, for me!"

Kudos to you for having the strength to get through it, and for living to tell the tale!

Title is:

"I got fooled by AI-for-science hype—here's what it taught me"

Chuck Moore (of Forth fame) and his company springs to mind. They make a chip with "144 independent computers" on it. I'm not sure if that is totally orthogonal to what you're saying, but there it is, just in case!

I wonder if "robot" was being used here in its original sense too of a "forced worker" rather than the more modern sense of "mechanical person". If not, I propose it.

That's a good start ^^. It was true before Trump too, but it's still better late than never

b. Wigner's original essay is a serious piece, and quite beautiful in its arguments. I had been under the impression that the phrasing had been used a few times since, but typically by other serious people who were aware of the lineage of that lovely essay. With this 6-paragraph vibey-blog-post, it truly has become a meme. So it goes, I suppose.

What solutions are you referring to?

This sentiment baffles me when I see it. It's not like we learned we'd this problem yesterday, and now we've to guess how we might solve it based on guessing.

For 35 years, "rapidly developing technologies and research" hasn't improved the numbers. I understand that there's a regular stream of news which touts one thing or another as a possible solution, but which one of them has done anything? How long do we wait for this techno-optimism to bear fruit?

Another that baffles me is The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

People can read it if they want, but if they find it dull four chapters in, just walk away, sometimes "the greats" are just culturally significant, or not your style, or whatever.

There are lots of good books out there though, and I'm glad you discovered something above the airport bestsellers. May I suggest to absolutely anyone

Hunger, by Knut Hamson

Ask The Dust, by John Fante

American Psycho, by Bret Easton Ellis

Lullaby, by Chuck Palahniuk

Porno, by Irvine Welsh

Spritely seems very relevant, but I don't see it get much mentions when this pops up