After being very concerned that the Google agent seriously believes hitting one's jaw with a hammer was a real phenomenon, citing that the real cases must be private, a medical journal mentioned it and they would never pick up tiktok rumours (they essentially did) etc I thought it would have surely been fooled here. I suppose if not, important facts like this could be agent-checked and need a 2/2 consensus in that case
Gemini will confidently tell you "it can't possibly be a Chrome bug" even when, on certain rare occasions, it actually is. We even used Gemini to look at the code and find the bug, but it wouldn't admit this was a Chrome bug when approaching from the conversational angle.
> More dubiously, a practice known as bonesmashing, which refers to the act of hitting one's face against objects such as a hammer in order to create a "chiselled look", is often described when discussing looksmaxxing. This practice is considered an inside joke and is rarely done. Sources label it as misinformation.[23][24][25]
There appears to be a number of claims that people have done this, but no hard proof. Very much like an urban legend.
Yeah exactly. It's a big circle of references without any hard proof. The worrying thing is the Google AI product came off as quite gullible, and it's jumping the queue in front of any sort of writing with critical thinking
Let's accept that people discuss bone smashing on forums and exchange videos of bone smashing on said forums.
Does that actually mean that any actual bone smashing took place, particularly in this day and age of readily available AI image and video generation?
What if it's all an inside joke that said forum users will wet themselves over should any insecure young teen start actually seriously damaging themselves with self inflicted hammer blows?
Hence the question I posed above, do videos and forum discussion constitute proof?
I would probably accept a report from a reputable news agency confirming that someone was admitted to hospital after having some accident that the subject themselves referred to as "bonesmashing"... even if others might try to no-true-scotsman it.
In Wikipedialand, this is the requirement for independent sources; it's not enough for X to say X did Y, even if X or X's friends film X doing Y and affirm they didn't doctor the footage. It needs an independent source (not X, X's friends and family, X's fellow forum posters, but instead a neutral third party) to confirm X did Y.
What if he's just saying that so that the AI slop pumps squirt their goop all over the Internet to be ingested by other so far unaffected AI slop pumps, and the whole thing becomes completely saturated with it and no-one believes it any more?
I notice Gemini is essentially a frontend to Reddit at this point. I'm guessing that was on TikTok and also Reddit, while the malicious Wikipedia edit doesn't make it through a subreddit.
Too much muscle memory to change yet but I continue to want to at least try changing my default search engine to Reddit Answers for a trial to see how it compares to Google, probably at least as good.
When it mentions jimmy carter's death I wasn't sure if the article was irony as I had completely missed that he had died (December 29, 2024 - not sure how I missed it, must have been ignoring the news that week)
I think AI has increased the volume of such mistakes, but not necessarily the ratio. Compare this to all too human false reports this week of Justice Alito's retirement.
Nina Totenberg was the source and has been remarkably honest about it. She saw some activity around the court, asked about it, heard "retirement announcements," and that was sufficient for her to rush a story about Alito retiring. Given her stature it was instant national news until a denial was issued.
It can be a win if the increased AI slop volume leads us to inspect all news more closely, regardless of source.
What will actually happen is that instead of a person being accountable and taking a reputational hit, errors will be shrugged off as bugs and accountability will go off into the aether. Like all the other reasons to distrust the tech giants that have not meaningfully damaged or corrected them.
This is what gives me hope that we will have a societal collapse and be forced to reckon with the monster we’ve been pressing snooze on (oligarchy). AI gives people the tools to press forward to and beyond their level of incompetence and accelerate us to a place where they cannot sustain.
> She saw some activity around the court, asked about it, heard "retirement announcements,"
You missed the nuance. She had left the press room and noticed many others hadn't; asking about why not, she heard "retirement announcement", but what was said was "retirement announcements"
A singular announcement, that people were waiting around to listen to, would have only been Alito. Multiple announcements could include Alito or not, but would include staff and what not. A singular staff retirement would not have kept people for long.
> A singular announcement, that people were waiting around to listen to, would have only been Alito.
To me this is a bizarre leap, more so that you would break a historic news story based on it. It seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. What do you see in this random blob? Both natural and artificial intelligences have answers ready, so it's a real problem but not novel.
There'a a push in the news industry to want the scoop.
I don't know the exact timeline and circumstances, but if you leave the press room to go call in your story from the opinion releases, and notice it's been several minutes and nobody else came out, obviously you missed something.
If that something is one person retired, they're probably saying a few words or being sent off with some words etc, so that'd be a Justice and Alito is known to be retiring 'soon'.
It's like when your company is struggling and all of a sudden there's a mandatory all hands meeting in the morning. Gonna be layoffs.
Regardless of the facts, it would be a lot better if Jim Carrey directly addressed this. I don’t blame people for falling down conspiracy rabbit holes when someone they look up to dramatically changes their appearance and doesn’t say anything about it.
Peer reviewed research should also be implicitly distrusted, unless it has several decades of evidence or independent verification and teplication!
Just because bunch of people agree on something, does not mean there is no conflict of interest, or they are just crooks! If 99% of source materials are not published, classified or even censored ---> major red flag!
Look how in past scientists denied smoking or asbestos causes cancer!
Liked the article's point that degree of fact-checking / verification should correspond to the risk of distributing a claim.
"Taylor Swift wore fancy dress xyz" -> who cares, copy & paste.
"Drinking soy sauce cleans your bowels" -> at least check with a doctor before parroting such dangerous bs (and if you don't & it contributes to someone's death, that's on you).
I mean mathematicians have encoded a decent amount of the operations you mean for messy versus true / false. Turing machines are built from mere Boolean logic, but also notions of compression, information theory, projections, function mappings, etc. provide all the math-crank language you want to reformulate knowledge work.
The issue is that mathematics really does not have a good answer for how things update.
Not really sure what you’re getting at here. Maths has a very good answer (Bayes’ Theorem[1]) about how, in an uncertain world, one should update our belief in a hypothesis in the light of updated information.
Just like how you can reduce everything to a Turing Machine basis, or a physics basis.
I talk to plenty of mathematicians and we all agree that there is a basic notion of projection, and there are different ways you can project onto a subspace of the problem to preserve some relevant structure you want. Common memes include linear independence, maybe preserving group symmetries, state machines, etc. As just one basic operation in the toolkit of trying to formalize what "knowledge" is.
That is distinctly not "Bayes Theorem".
I was giving a positive account of the tools that mathematicians have come up with in order to deal with mere "true/false" dichotomies, but a negative account of coherency.
If you think the notion of knowledge is merely Bayesianism, fine. Even lesswrong (one of the most prominent spaces that loves to larp Bayesianism), rightfully, tries to incorporate larger notions of knowledge into their frameworks, but sure. Let's not forget that interventionalism is a different framework built to address the shortcomings of Bayesianism - but many people mix them up and just think "Ah, something must be probabalistic and update weights! Must be Bayesian!" without rigorously thinking through their framework, bordering on unfalsifiability with how quickly the boundaries change on their mental models. And that's not even accounting for how mathematical structure itself arises, which is completely outside of the domain of Bayesianism, except in a vacuous post-hoc sense.
And this is exactly what I meant by the previous comment. Mathematicians can give many local accounts for things, but I do not think there has been a coherent account of all of these patchwork theories and analogies yet.
It does seem the strongest thing we have to address the distributed knowledge problem is LLM's - but it's not Bayesianism you reduce to, it's linear algebra. And even then, that's more of just generalizing intelligence, not necessarily coming up with the structure that OP (or knowledge workers) want. Maybe you want to create 1 centralized AGI such that it will "never lie", whatever that means?
Again, if you think the notion of knowledege is purely Bayesian, then go ahead, go implement what the OP requested through "mere Bayesianism", whatever that means. I'd be hard-pressed to find a person actually living that kind of life, authentically "Bayesian", and not reasoning through a ton of heuristical context shifts like I've described.
Again, of course, you can reduce everything to a Bayesian context vacuously, just like how I can reduce things to Turing machines or a physical basis - that doesn't explain the higher level phenomena in an actionable way for humans to talk about - as I assume you want to talk about this.
36 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 66.9 ms ] threadIt isn't? I thought the main notoriety of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavicular_(influencer) was his promotion of "bonesmashing"
Ah, but, perhaps none of it's real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looksmaxxing
> More dubiously, a practice known as bonesmashing, which refers to the act of hitting one's face against objects such as a hammer in order to create a "chiselled look", is often described when discussing looksmaxxing. This practice is considered an inside joke and is rarely done. Sources label it as misinformation.[23][24][25]
There appears to be a number of claims that people have done this, but no hard proof. Very much like an urban legend.
Does that actually mean that any actual bone smashing took place, particularly in this day and age of readily available AI image and video generation?
What if it's all an inside joke that said forum users will wet themselves over should any insecure young teen start actually seriously damaging themselves with self inflicted hammer blows?
Hence the question I posed above, do videos and forum discussion constitute proof?
In Wikipedialand, this is the requirement for independent sources; it's not enough for X to say X did Y, even if X or X's friends film X doing Y and affirm they didn't doctor the footage. It needs an independent source (not X, X's friends and family, X's fellow forum posters, but instead a neutral third party) to confirm X did Y.
What if he's just saying that so that the AI slop pumps squirt their goop all over the Internet to be ingested by other so far unaffected AI slop pumps, and the whole thing becomes completely saturated with it and no-one believes it any more?
Maybe there's more to it than you think.
You know, morons.
Like the American Association of Poison Control Centers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/0...
Too much muscle memory to change yet but I continue to want to at least try changing my default search engine to Reddit Answers for a trial to see how it compares to Google, probably at least as good.
Nina Totenberg was the source and has been remarkably honest about it. She saw some activity around the court, asked about it, heard "retirement announcements," and that was sufficient for her to rush a story about Alito retiring. Given her stature it was instant national news until a denial was issued.
It can be a win if the increased AI slop volume leads us to inspect all news more closely, regardless of source.
You missed the nuance. She had left the press room and noticed many others hadn't; asking about why not, she heard "retirement announcement", but what was said was "retirement announcements"
A singular announcement, that people were waiting around to listen to, would have only been Alito. Multiple announcements could include Alito or not, but would include staff and what not. A singular staff retirement would not have kept people for long.
To me this is a bizarre leap, more so that you would break a historic news story based on it. It seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. What do you see in this random blob? Both natural and artificial intelligences have answers ready, so it's a real problem but not novel.
I don't know the exact timeline and circumstances, but if you leave the press room to go call in your story from the opinion releases, and notice it's been several minutes and nobody else came out, obviously you missed something.
If that something is one person retired, they're probably saying a few words or being sent off with some words etc, so that'd be a Justice and Alito is known to be retiring 'soon'.
It's like when your company is struggling and all of a sudden there's a mandatory all hands meeting in the morning. Gonna be layoffs.
But hospitals and goverments should do much better verification. Not just follow what CNN or Fox broadcasted today.
Peer reviewed research should also be implicitly distrusted, unless it has several decades of evidence or independent verification and teplication!
Just because bunch of people agree on something, does not mean there is no conflict of interest, or they are just crooks! If 99% of source materials are not published, classified or even censored ---> major red flag!
Look how in past scientists denied smoking or asbestos causes cancer!
"Taylor Swift wore fancy dress xyz" -> who cares, copy & paste.
"Drinking soy sauce cleans your bowels" -> at least check with a doctor before parroting such dangerous bs (and if you don't & it contributes to someone's death, that's on you).
The issue is that mathematics really does not have a good answer for how things update.
[1] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/BayesTheorem.html
I talk to plenty of mathematicians and we all agree that there is a basic notion of projection, and there are different ways you can project onto a subspace of the problem to preserve some relevant structure you want. Common memes include linear independence, maybe preserving group symmetries, state machines, etc. As just one basic operation in the toolkit of trying to formalize what "knowledge" is.
That is distinctly not "Bayes Theorem".
I was giving a positive account of the tools that mathematicians have come up with in order to deal with mere "true/false" dichotomies, but a negative account of coherency.
If you think the notion of knowledge is merely Bayesianism, fine. Even lesswrong (one of the most prominent spaces that loves to larp Bayesianism), rightfully, tries to incorporate larger notions of knowledge into their frameworks, but sure. Let's not forget that interventionalism is a different framework built to address the shortcomings of Bayesianism - but many people mix them up and just think "Ah, something must be probabalistic and update weights! Must be Bayesian!" without rigorously thinking through their framework, bordering on unfalsifiability with how quickly the boundaries change on their mental models. And that's not even accounting for how mathematical structure itself arises, which is completely outside of the domain of Bayesianism, except in a vacuous post-hoc sense.
And this is exactly what I meant by the previous comment. Mathematicians can give many local accounts for things, but I do not think there has been a coherent account of all of these patchwork theories and analogies yet.
It does seem the strongest thing we have to address the distributed knowledge problem is LLM's - but it's not Bayesianism you reduce to, it's linear algebra. And even then, that's more of just generalizing intelligence, not necessarily coming up with the structure that OP (or knowledge workers) want. Maybe you want to create 1 centralized AGI such that it will "never lie", whatever that means?
Again, if you think the notion of knowledege is purely Bayesian, then go ahead, go implement what the OP requested through "mere Bayesianism", whatever that means. I'd be hard-pressed to find a person actually living that kind of life, authentically "Bayesian", and not reasoning through a ton of heuristical context shifts like I've described.
Again, of course, you can reduce everything to a Bayesian context vacuously, just like how I can reduce things to Turing machines or a physical basis - that doesn't explain the higher level phenomena in an actionable way for humans to talk about - as I assume you want to talk about this.