elicksaur

What context did I skip? It seems like the statement stands on its own.

Each activity we engage in has different use, value, and subjective enjoyment to different people. Some people love knitting! Personally, I do know how to sew small tears, which is more than most people in the US these days.

Just because I utilize the services of others for some things does not mean that it should be expected I want to utilize the service of others for all things.

This is a preposterous generalization and exactly why I said the OP premise is laughable.

Further, you’ve shifted OP’s point from subjective enjoyment of an activity to getting “paid well” - this is an irrelevant tangent to whether “most” people in general would delegate work if they could.

most of us would delegate our work code to somebody else or something else if we could.

Laughably narrow-minded projection of your own perspective on others.

Do you typically find reductio ad absurdum arguments to be persuasive?

I think I’d call these examples “predictable” failures instead of “odd”.

OpenAI has also announced a social media project

I haven’t heard about this before this post, but if they’re starting a “Social Media but with AI” site in 2025, can’t help but feel like they’re cooked.

This is interesting when you run it up the abstraction ladder.

What if we take this perspective from “knowledge of news topic of the day” and apply it to “knowledge of the virtue of commenting on a topic”. Are you qualified to actually speak on that subject? Am I? Maybe best not to say anything, since I’m not sure.

The current link includes a link to this page which is a blog post announcement from today.

https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-4-multimodal-intelligence/

None of my comments say I’m demanding perfection. That’s a fallacy to reduce my position to absurdism, so it can be easily dismissed.

LLMs have not improved my productivity. When I have tried to use them, they have been a net negative. There are many other people who report a similar experience.

No one says, “Wikipedia knows everything.”

I’m tired of “Well people get things wrong, too.” as a defense of these systems. They should stand or fall on their own merit.

And yes, reducing everything in the world - nothing matters. Everything is relative. What even is truth, amirite?

If that’s our slogan for the future then it is hella depressing.

The AI is optimized for producing text that sounds like it makes sense and is helpful.

This is not a guarantee that the text it produces is a correct explanation of the thing you are asking about. It’s a mental trick like a psychic reading tea leaves.

It’s like the people who say these things live on a different planet.

Or an alternate timeline where a different version of LLMs were invented.

It literally knows nothing.

It is incapable of knowledge.

I’m bored of it.

Gonna submit that business model to a YC 2026 batch.

This doesn’t seem like a great way to reason about the predictions.

For something like this, saying “There is no evidence showing it” is a good enough refutation.

Counterpointing that “Well, there could be a lot of this going on, but it is in secret.” - that could be a justification for any kooky theory out there. Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts. Maybe AI has already replaced all of us and we’re Cylons. Something we couldn’t know.

The predictions are specific enough that they are falsifiable, so they should stand or fall based on the clear material evidence supporting or contradicting them.

Note the market resolves by:

Resolution will be via a poll of Manifold moderators. If they're split on the issue, with anywhere from 30% to 70% YES votes, it'll resolve to the proportion of YES votes.

So you should really read it as “Will >30% of Manifold moderators in 2027 think the ‘predictions seem to have been roughly correct up until that point’?”

Why would “sales rep” be immune to the magical singularity AI that will be 9000 IQ points smarter than all of humanity combined?

“Banning” during a specific time at a specific location is not really a “ban”. It is a restriction.

This is conflating written jots with information presented to the students.

The author is talking about PowerPoint slides that were presented to the students as valuable information.

I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides.

I get that there’s been shifts in student attitudes - there’s lots of other people in similar positions saying it.

But, I think this quote of all of the text shows how the author has a distain for their students not simply because of any perceived lack of effort. My best professors would send these to the class without prompting.

But, the author clearly buys into the mystique of the professor like their lecture notes are some secret formula.

Meanwhile, they quote:

Troy Jollimore writes, “I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters.”

If I had a teammate in a shared intellectual pursuit who didn’t share their notes…

Shoot, didn’t know downloading Llama and running it locally was helping China because I’m not paying Sam Altman money.

Can I send him my bank account info directly? I need to help the cause.

Their point is that with AI generation, (3) is already possible to hide.

There are obviously external forces that contribute to anyone’s circumstances rich or poor.

But, ultimately, you can only spend as much as you make in income, or go bankrupt. Choosing to tack on an interest payment to your costs is often an unnecessary additional cost for people. That’s true if you’re poor buying a rudimentary TV or rich maxing out credit cards to furnish your mansion.

Nitpicking like this sounds like something a cult member would say to make a Motte-and-bailey argument.

“Don’t worry, I’m not one of those silly TESCREALs, I’m just a transhumanist!”

What does this distinction add to or take away from the thrust of the analysis?

Saying that anyone who wears glasses is associated with these beliefs is indicative of drinking the kool-aid.

Thanks for the context. Yeah, I’m reading up on them more now. It looks like they also make money on missed payments just like credit cards.

Have you read the fine print on their website? It’s literally just a credit card/payday loan. The rates if you miss a payment go as high as 33% APR

https://www.klarna.com

Edit: since it might vary by location, here’s what footnote 6 says for me, in part:

A $1,000 purchase might cost $181.04 per month over 6 months at 28.99% APR.* *Rate ranges from 7.99%-33.99% APR based on creditworthiness and subject to credit approval…

I’ve wondered what the business model is here since klarna always advertises “interest free” loans. That option does exist, but from the actual announcement there’s another loan option - which of course is just a payday loan:

Pay in Full allows customers to pay for what they love right away using Klarna’s seamless payments experience.

Pay in 4 allows customers to pay in four equal interest-free installments

Pay Later allows customers to defer payments to a more convenient time, such as a date that aligns with their paycheck schedules

https://about.doordash.com/en-us/news/doordash-partners-with...

Edit: I’m understanding now they’re also betting on missed payments just like credit cards. The payday option maybe also be “interest free” - unclear from the press release imo.

For instance, in customer service, an RL agent might discover that sometimes asking a clarifying question early in the conversation, even when seemingly obvious, leads to much better resolution rates.

Why does this read to me as the bot finding a path of “Annoy the customer until they hang up and mark the case as solved.” ?