It's only cognitive dissonance if you look at the "US as a whole".
Americans can be charitable individually, but that does not contradict the reality that US corporate and institutional structures operate on a strict "profit above all else" mandate.
Sorry, yeah I don't trust Altman and Musk, the companies they run inherit that. Their public face betrays an almost cartoonish evil, it's sad people can't see that.
Other labs seem to be working the exact same angles as them, but just have the good sense to not be so open about it. It's not the "lab" people have a problem with, it's their leadership. These people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for society with this technology.
It seems some level of interpretability, even if it requires tooling, could result in the ability to spin out synthetic training data sets from other models in an automated fashion.
> In thinking mode, we have observed that when using the recommended sampling parameters, Qwen3.5-0.8B is more prone to entering thinking loops compared to other Qwen3.5 models
> Could you define what you mean by human perspective?
They can't. This is an "anti-consciousness" qualia argument adapted to a general purpose anti-ai argument.
They are arguing that meaning doesn't come from the accurate reproduction of information, but from the subjective, lived experience behind the words. That subjectivity can't be defined, it's the whole point. It will never be defined, no matter how far along we come.
> Maybe this is a timeless problem, but I fear it getting worse.
It's both, I think. It seems to me that it happens during periods of fast technological advancement. We just happen to be living through a sustained period of that.
The historical precedent is that it slows down again after people get a chance to take in the new reality. I am not sure how comforting that is.
> Maybe you shouldn't take the "you" of this article personally, but as a reference to your 100 mouth breathing neighbors.
That's great and all, but if policy is created for the lowest common denominator because of these 100 dopamine-depleted donkeys, is it going to impact me?
It increases signal to noise ratio in comparison to raw google results.
You might or might not miss that hobbyist web page. I can't say for certain, but I do know that most of my self learning explicitly includes going over the history of the topic.
Or you know, same scenario, but you are looking for information on how quanta work. You really can't make sense of the first 10 pages of google results, but you happen on "Motion Mountain" on the 11th page and you end up spending the next two years telling people the universe is made of little knots.
If that sounds like a pretty specific example, it's because it's a real one of someone I knew. I don't think the tool here is going to massively impact the quality. The person's judgement will play a way heavier role in that.
The average person was able to look at the devices up until now and see a tool. Now they see something they don't understand, but sure does seem smarter than they are, and has the aesthetics of being a person on the other side of the computer.
Do you think this guy has the technical depth to make these connections? He's working off what he can see, and he will likely grow old and die still lacking that understanding. So will a vast majority of users of these services.
What you are seeing is people realigning with a baseline of their reality. They have to trust what they are being told on this by someone, and they need to figure out who and how amid malicious actors that are trying to bend their beliefs.
Americans can be charitable individually, but that does not contradict the reality that US corporate and institutional structures operate on a strict "profit above all else" mandate.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy
reply