gste

It was always tongue-in-cheek. People liked the idea that he was the center of Hollywood in the 90s even though he wasn't the most famous. It was an amusing observation that he was always in supporting roles in every movie. It feels plausible even if it wasn't true. His name adds to the memetic quality.

He's my favourite actor, so I know: he's in a very eclectic range of films in loads of genres with all kinds of actors.

I think that your range as an actor helps you here. For example, Seth Rogan, while he's in loads of films, he is extremely typecast into stoner comedies. So he is more separated from actors in other genres.

I'd suggest that a random number generator is a great place to go if you want to get an original number.

There's nothing small about it, and I didn't say it's a representation of what humans think. I said it's the models take on humanity based on having been trained on a far larger amount of text than any human has ever read

> Going against the masses is usually wrong

Not only is that not true, but when people fervently believe something because everyone else does, that's usually when they're the most wrong, and the most dangerously wrong.

That suggests they can't make inferences or produce any original insights, which is wrong. They can absolutely have takes.

Even if it's a simulacrum, it's a simulacrum based on nearly everything that was ever written. No one who has ever lived can claim to know what these models have trained on.

I think they picked this because it's simply the most evident problem from the sum of all news, politics, literature and history. Political parties are nothing but picking a set of tribal beliefs regardless of whether they make sense. Democracies and oligarchies both have that in common. I don't see one single society that's solved it.

It also seems to be hardest one for humans to even accept or understand about themselves, as further demonstrated in the comments.

They're trained on all of human history, and the OP is asking for their take on humanity. How is that not interesting?

In terms of the human evolutionary record, we have no idea what our ancestral species spoke like, compared to say a chimpanzee. None of them are around to tell us.

My intuition tells me that human evolution grokked language. Maybe like GPT it very quickly went from being complete gibberish to freakishly coherent. A handful of words and grammar rules leads to remarkable complexity. But that's a guess.

I think objects with these shapes make similar sounds in the real world. Sharp shapes make percussive sounds. Round shapes make softer sounds.

Dog's have very good hearing, and their hearing must help them to model the world around them, to understand what different objects in the world are.

So I think it's less about linguistics and more about our audiovisual mapping of the physical world.

Then again, that must be where the origin of language evolved from in the first place.

Let's get this straight: yes, there's been a reduction in demand and increases in efficiency, but electricity is objectively extremely expensive in the UK now. Energy is being heavily imported.

This has disastrous consequences for businesses and the economy. It is the number one biggest problem facing the UK economy after the huge government debt and crippling taxes... although there are a number of other problems I could mention.

The effect of the AI-created drug is saving someone's life.

The effect of the AI-created proof is a mathematician abandoning years of research, losing grants, awards, ruining their career, etc.

The only difference here is our emotional reaction!

Yes, there's something interesting about that. It seems like having a very vivid simulation of taking a beer out of the fridge should be exciting. But as soon as you had it, you would stop caring about it. It's just not fun. Nobody is setting out to make a fridge simulation video game. This level of simulation has very high diminishing returns.

Indeed, aren't medical trials based on its effects, rather than how it works?

Would you prefer to take the medicine that is proven to work or the one that is quite interesting for academic reasons behind its understood mechanisms but doesn't actually work?

> Using AI to find and highlight new principles, methods, or insights, rather than merely new proofs.

I would have assumed that, by producing new proofs, the AI has either validated existing principles, or discovered new ones? Isn't that worth studying?

Are mathematicians complaining that reviewing AI's proofs is not as fun as writing your own? Try being a programmer... welcome to our world!

If AI lacks imagination and is not discovering new principles, then it's doing us a favour: it's crossing out the problems that don't need new principles. So the problems/conjectures that are still left are the more interesting ones.

What amazes me is how uninspired this all is. I got bored of the browser ports after seeing two of them.

All of this power and still there's nothing new I want to play.

Have to point this out because it annoys me every time:

Cloudflare is perhaps most famously and most significantly an international, global platform. That's kind of the whole point.

Only in the smallprint does it mention you must be a United States or Canada resident to enter.

The UK really needs to focus on not bankrupting and destroying ourselves rather than coming up with more rules for things.

> Please stop discussing one of the most pivotal moments in history

This reminds me of prescientific explanations of the sun and stars

Like the best thing we have to remark on is the fact it is blue when this is probably the least remarkable thing about it

You know Steve Jobs would have said it's 2x too thick, 2x too big and way too asymmetrical

Claude is like

> The last one guesses its own refusals, marking the door open before we walked around it. Say the word and I'll do the joinery

Like WTF are you even talking about

I think it's reinforcement learning. It's been trained to give coding results but some of the conversation it gives as a side effect of its coding are absolute garbage

I think it's just that people who can't individually contribute end up doing... whatever else.

And managers that hired those people don't want to admit that they are bad at hiring people.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is very relevant here. Competent companies do not have this problem. Incompetent companies are completely oblivious to this problem.

> Only the five subjects of the Berkeley experiment have officially seen olo.

Basically equivalent to

source: trust me bro

I started making a programming language that is designed to encompass frontend, backend, database, container, and cluster, so that there it is not necessary to stitch together other languages.

It uses functional programming and event sourcing to try and effectively "solve" modern distributed web application development, so that your app code in this language can be extremely simple but not have bad architecture and gaps.

I'm probably oversimplifying the complexity, so I don't even know if it's feasible, but it's pretty fun to give Claude my crazy ideas and see what happens.

https://github.com/georgestephenson/beck

It does demonstrate that to some extent: specular light is omitted from the normal map, so it correctly maps the room behind the light.

The last example also correctly identified broken panes of glass in the background, so that the glass is a solid and the spaces have nothing there.

I found similar from experience with lifting weights.

If my gym sessions are 300+ minutes per week, I end up too tired to increase the weight and I get weaker, it's counter productive.

180 minutes per week feels good but is pretty easy if it's 30 mins 6 times per week (or 60 mins 3 times per week). But that's where the effort-level really comes into it, how long are you resting between sets, etc.

So 150-300 minutes per week feels right but it depends on many factors. Elite athletes are genetic freaks, etc.

I used the Pro subscription for Gemini 3 Pro, which I think is running Nano Banana Pro for image generation, but it doesn't tell you which model in the chatbot UI.

The author wants to draw a contrast between the powerful businessman discussing EBITDA and the creative expression of knitting. In my opinion they are equally dull and well matched.