Make it so.

Ludwig Hittgenstein, they used to call him. (But only in their private language.)

That’s your own boring and unimaginative opinion. Have the humility to own up to it.

Maybe someone wants to explore the behavior of LLMs with extreme input. We call it testing. You can’t judge the value of that from a distance.

Stop judging sadists who aren’t hurting anyone. If anything, congratulate them.

Reminds me of tax forms. Good times.

It helps us practice critical thinking. What it doesn’t do is help us practice knowing WHEN to use critical thinking.

Easy, all the damn time.

kek..

interesting perspective...when and how much also is a skill someone should have.

Not all cases are wrong though. One in five is correct and the "Looks correct" scores also and gets XP. So it does practise knowing when not to doubt..a little..

Cue video of the helicopter coming to get Clint Eastwood in Firefox!

Come out of retirement for one last job!

You auto-pre-completed my comment.

Scrambled intentionality is nearly impossible to productively analyze.

When you randomly choose a picture to show me, I cannot glean any intent from being shown that specific picture, but I can glean some intent from the set of pictures you could have shown me, and in the relationships among the elements of the given picture you did show. Any randomness cuts out some intention.

When a picture is derived from huge model, any intention is mulched up to a degree that analyzing the picture for meaning is pointless.

The statement should be: never use AI to draft text that is to be presented as your own authorial voice.

Never, never, do that!

I draft all my own text that anyone will ever read as “that’s James Bach talking to me.” I want no one to be able to credibly question that.

But of course, writing is more than merely drafting the text. As I draft, I write about ideas that other people or AI may have helped me come to.