This sounds nightmarish. Maybe we build a human centipede if we can get the VC funding next?
3,993 karma · joined June 26, 2021
I actually felt bad for them and wondered if this type of video poking fun at them would become a trend.
I can't help but think this may have influenced them to shutter to avoid more damage to the URL/brand value.
You can just about make out those goalposts on the surface of the moon with a good telescope at this point.
All this is far more expensive to serve so it’s locked away behind paid plans.
The most famous examples are likely the tobacco industry spreading misinformation through self-funded studies and experts, and the fossil fuel industry doing the same to seed doubt about climate change. But of course we can think of countless examples of entire industries and individual large corporations pushing out misleading bullshit, threatening or outright killing journalists and activists to cover up their catastrophic fuckups and their chronic conscious excretion of negative externalities.
This has all of course been going on since the dawn of time, but to focus on the last century in the US, we've seen all sorts of corporations and coalitions of rich and powerful people push misinformation into nearly every sector of our society - universities, science, journalism, politics, etc. in order to undermine confidence in shared facts, corrupt people's ability to discern whether or not something is fundamentally true, and sow confusion so that they can continue to operate in perpetuity in this chaotic maelstrom of doubt.
Lots of capture of government towards these ends as well, we can look at the concomitant constant cuts to education in order to weaken people's understanding of the world and ability to think critically. The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine was probably a step change, and Trump represents the sharpest recent escalation of all this.
From day one, he's done everything he can to shred any collective notion of shared objective truth. Anything he doesn't like is fake news, and the idea that the media is lying, scientists are lying, experts are lying, and institutions are lying, he has spread so fucking successfully through society, to the point where Americans no longer have anything like a shared sense of reality.
It seems like we're being reduced to tribes who are organized primarily around faith in various charismatic individuals.
I think this is fundamentally the worst thing he's done, because it lays the foundation for virtually every other conceivable and inconceivable abuse. If people can't even agree on what is happening, we're fucked. People and institutions in power can do anything they want to whoever they want, because the public has lost their ability to even recognize the danger posed to them collectively and thus mount any resistance based on a shared sense of reality.
Social media has definitely famously accelerated aspects of this like the fragmentation and the spread/magnification of fringe worldviews through echo chambers, but I think it's just one (and maybe this is controversial, but I'd be willing to be generous enough to think the 20something year old creators were too stupid to conceive of these long term consequences at first, but who knows, maybe not) element in a much longer and more intentional, malicious war against the many for the benefit of the few.
3.1 pro is just fundamentally not on the same level. In any context I've tried it in, for code review it acts like a model from 1yr ago in that it's all hallucinated superficial bullshit.
Claude code is significantly less likely to produce the same (yet still does a decent amount). Gpt 5.4 high/xhigh is on another level altogether - truly not comparable to Gemini.
I would again see Bukowski.
Do you think the financial incentives for broke ass scientists trying to secure rapidly dwindling scientific grants are greater than those behind the global fossil fuel industry and other industries (virtually all) that have a detrimental effect on the environment?
Really man? You think the cabal is the postdocs living on $60k a year and not the multinational corporations with a history of things like tobacco companies funding studies that prove smoking isn't bad for you and exxon funding scientists and research trying to disprove climate change?
Completely detach yourself from your belief system and political ideology, step back, and look at the facts on the ground objectively, where money and power rests, how it flows, without any concern for protecting your pre-existing belief system. Where does sense, an understanding of incentives, and probability lead you?
People can definitely be productive with less powerful models. Supermaven or Cursor's tab autocomplete models from a year ago were already a huge boost over the pre-AI days. They just don't have the same capabilities as the leading models.
Curious if you've tried Gpt 5.4 High through Codex to compare for your use case?
Even then, the frontier models would likely have improved by an equivalent degree, so you'd again be faced with the same choice of deciding between a dramatically less effective local tool and a far more capable, closed remote model.
I guess there's going to be some point of "good enough" for most people.
I feel like the closed frontier models really got there around 8 months ago and then even moreso ~4-6 months ago with the release of the Codex series and then opus 4.6. Finally feels like you can get reliably good implementations of features that follow repo patterns and best practices, and at least with 5.4 High/Xhigh Codex, code reviews that don't mostly surface hallucinated or superficial bullshit.
While I'm rambling, I feel like when/if local models ever do catch up to this point, the frontier models are going to be so damn good that software devs are truly fucked.
At the same time, they’ve been giving out a ton of additional quota resets seemingly every other week (and committed to an additional reset for every million additional users until they hit 10mil on codex).
So they’ve really set a high bar for people’s expectations on their quota limits.
Once they drop the 2x promotion for good and stop the frequent resets, there are going to be a lot of complaints.
These videos are blowing up on Twitter.
I personally found the one about Pete Hegseth quite well made and the song actually catchy.
Edit: Video link courtesy mirashii in this thread - https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/116348872322024778
That said, I do find myself downloading packages and watching 4K video all day long. 25Mbps is noticeably slower the majority of the time. You can get by, of course, the same way you can compile an Xcode project on a 2019 Intel Mac (I still think MacOS 26 supports Intel?) but it's a significantly nicer experience on more recent M series machines.
Who likes to sit around waiting on downloads/compilation?
Now I'm realizing you said 25Mbps up, 10Mbps down. Wow, assuming this isn't a mistake, 10Mbps is slow enough to make even normal web browsing start to chug IME.
First message:
https://i.postimg.cc/yNZzmGMM/Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-12-44...
Not sure if I'm doing something wrong?
This more or less reflects my experience with most local models over the last couple years (although admittedly most aren't anywhere near this bad). People keep saying they're useful and yet I can't get them to be consistently useful at all.
First message:
https://i.postimg.cc/yNZzmGMM/Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-12-44...
Not sure if I'm doing something wrong?
This more or less reflects my experience with most local models over the last couple years (although admittedly most aren't anywhere near this bad). People keep saying they're useful and yet I can't get them to be consistently useful at all.
That said, an objective assessment of reality reveals that you are not in fact the only thing that matters, or the thing that matters the most, in this universe. There's no way to argue your life is more valuable than the lives of the other humans you're in competition with that isn't ex post facto rationalization.
I agree that LLMs/AI pose many threats to us. I don't think the intrinsic value of living objectively went down, although the perception of it may be in the process of doing so. I think it's objectively always been what it is and we've held useful (to us) delusions about it, which AI now threatens to shatter some part of these.
I've thought a few times lately about beneficial delusion - things like blind, baseless, even counterfactual confidence in yourself are genuinely helpful in so many aspects of life from interpersonal relationships, to sales, to success in business and various pursuits.
You may not actually be the smartest and most capable person but by genuinely believing that you are you will trend towards positive outcomes.
Anyway, I think this belief in our central role in the universe/exceptionalism is another example of this, or as you put it just another useful survival skill.
That said, I do like to stay grounded as much as I can in as objective an assessment of reality as I can muster, otherwise I start to feel unmoored and like I'm going insane.
Not necessarily so for the dynamics of magnetic fields, or nonhuman animal communications, or dark energy/matter.
We are bombarded nonstop by magnetic fields, nonhuman animal communications, and live in a universe which seems to be majority dominated by dark energy and matter, and yet understand little to none of it all.
If you were able to somehow capture all that information in full detail as you've had access to by the age of say 25, it would likely dwarf the amount of information in millions of books by several orders of magnitude.
When you are 25 years old and are presented a strange looking ball and told to throw it into a strange looking basket for the first time. You are relying on an unfathomable amount of information turned into knowledge and countless prior experiments that you've accumulated/exercised to that point relating to the way your body and the world works.
Agreed.
> But you claimed that humans aren't unique.
I'm arguing that it is up to us to prove that they are interestingly unique in the context of this post. Which is pretty narrow - how do we solve problems?
The theme I was arguing against that I've seen repeated throughout this thread is that AIs are just recombining things they've absorbed and throwing those recombinations at the wall until they see what sticks.
It raises the question of why we presume that humans do things any differently, when it seems quite clear that we can only ever possibly do the same, unless we are claiming that knowledge of the universe can enter the human mind through some means other than through the known senses.
Not at all disputing that humans possess many capabilities that AIs do not.
> Do you ever wonder why that is? I often wonder why tech has so many reductionist, materialist, and quite frankly anti-human, thinkers.
I touched on this elsewhere, will go ahead and paste it here again:
The fundamental thing I'm speaking out against is the arrogance of human exceptionalism.
This whole debate about what it means to be intelligent or human just seems like we're making the same mistakes we've made over and over.
Earth as the center of the universe, sun as the center of the universe, man as the only animal with consciousness and intellect, the anthropomorphic nature of the majority of the deities in our religions and the anthropocentric purpose of the universe within those religions...
I think this desire to believe that we are special, that the universe in some way does ultimately revolve around us, is seemingly a deep need in our psyche but any material analysis of our universe shows that it is extremely unlikely that we hold that position.
This whole debate about what it means to be intelligent or human just seems like we're making the same mistakes we've made over and over.
Earth as the center of the universe, sun as the center of the universe, man as the only animal with consciousness and intellect, the anthropomorphic nature of the majority of the deities in our religions and the anthropocentric purpose of the universe within those religions...
I think this desire to believe that we are special, that the universe in some way does ultimately revolve around us, is seemingly a deep need in our psyche but any material analysis of our universe shows that it is extremely unlikely that we hold that position.
There are also a tremendous number of similarities between all living things and between rocks (and between rocks and living things).
Most ways in which things are unique are arguably uninteresting.
The default mode, the null hypothesis should be to assume that human intelligence isn't interestingly unique unless it can be proven otherwise.
In these repeated discussions around AI, there is criticism over the way an AI solves a problem, without any actual critical thought about the way humans solve problems.
The latter is left up to the assumption that "of course humans do X differently" and if you press you invariably end up at something couched in a vague mysticism about our inner-workings.
Humans apparently create something from nothing, without the recombination of any prior knowledge or outside information, and they get it right on the first try. Through what, divine inspiration from the God who made us and only us in His image?
It's this pervasive belief that underlies so much discussion around what it means to be intelligent. The null hypothesis goes out the window.
People constantly make comments like "well it's just trying a bunch of stuff until something works" and it seems that they do not pause for a moment to consider whether or not that also applies to humans.
If they do, they apply it in only the most restrictive way imaginable, some 2 dimensional caricature of reality, rather than considering all the ways that humans try and fail in all things throughout their lifetimes in the process of learning and discovery.
There's still this seeming belief in magic and human exceptionalism, deeply held, even in communities that otherwise tend to revolve around the sciences and the empirical.
A basic AI chat response also doesn't first discard all other possible responses.
If we get to any sort of confidence it will work it is based on building a history of it, or things related to "it" working consistently over time, out of innumerable other efforts where other "it"s did not work.