No spam, ever. We'll never share your email address and you can opt out at any time. Already a subscriber? Log in
Lawyers on both sides of this case either admitted to directly using AI or admitted to rubber stamping legal briefs that had been prepared with AI without reviewing them. Some of the lawyers involved were unaware that cases could be hallucinated. www.404media.co/judge-learns...
Live-read of the Magnifica Humanitas part two: This section starts by covering truth, work and freedom (and unspoken: communication). Figured it will probably need its own thread. www.vatican.va/content/leo-...
Anthropic’s response and influence on the encyclical is most evident in the claim that “even its creators don’t understand how it works.” In June, I wrote about what that actually means & why Anthropic says it. (Written while I was in Rome, FWIW). www.techpolicy.press/the-blac…
In visual culture & media theory, images from diffusion models are often analyzed through data critique: comparing what's produced to what's ingested. In this pre-print, I propose to look at the digestive system too: the decisions built into the system that automate specific i…
“Whether AGI will arrive matters less than what waiting for it already organizes.” link.springer.com/article/10.1...
I predicted this rise in "slopware" in my piece on agentic systems earlier this year... with a few other warnings about the natural consequences of LLMs for code. www.techpolicy.press/stochastic-f...
An LLM will grade a paper according to the criteria through which it is designed to produce a paper. As such, the LLM grades humans based on the criteria engineers use to assess the LLM. mail.cyberneticforests.com/its-not-just...
We are also releasing a new research primer, "Myths about Generative AI, Productivity, and Labor Displacement", which discusses five common myths around generative AI at work. This primer will be the first of many. labor.dair-institute.org/primers
“I think actually things will move maybe even by the end of this year to where you don't even bother doing coding. The AI just creates the binary directly.” “Doing coding.” The AI just creates “the binary” directly. Ok.
This week is “Noisy Systems,” and yes it’s in person but also streaming online for free — and without registration, so do check the link and bookmark if you’d like to attend! www.biblhertz.it/events/45629...
'Fun' survey results: people know that AI overviews can't be trusted, but they still don't check! explodingtopics.com/blog/ai-trus...
"The 'knowing' has been outsourced to a machine; we just retrieve the bits we want + leave the rest behind. Whatever that is, it isn’t knowledge, + one of the truly astonishing things abt this moment is the fact that so many ppl are perfectly happy to know so little. Again Bis…
This image from Anthropic goes out to the two guys on here who called me dumb for talking about stochastic flocks
The reason people like the Pope’s AI missive is because there is simply no other institution has taken the side of humanity in the humanities sense. I’m not Catholic, but I am a human who cares about the human mind and the poetics Catholics call a soul.
Thomas Mann said that "a writer is someone for whom writing is harder than it is for other people." This is a reason writers hate generative AI: people who thought writing was easy never cared what the words said, and the LLM is a typewriter for when you don't give a shit.
There is a rebuttal to AI crit that goes: “you are assuming there is some mysterious, unnameable essence that makes people human.” The argument is then that we must somehow show evidence; ideally, that evidence would be quantifiable
People keep insisting that LLMs are not next-token predictors anymore and I think we need to clarify two vocabularies between camps.
Lots of people concerned about data theft use AI detection tools like Pangram. I’m curious, does anyone know where Pangram’s training data comes from? Its white paper says “public” data, which sounds to me like “publicly available,” which OpenAI said when it meant “anything we can get our hands on.”
I think I need to accept that I have become a “bad guy” for the AI critics on here, which is totally different from being pro-AI. I feel like I missed a bunch of memos or something.
Someone on LinkedIn thought my post about what we do and don’t know about LLMs was a post about what I, personally, do and do not know about LLMs. Like a 5th grade book report
Cardinal says "the encyclical is not about AI, it's about the human condition." I see, "it's not x, it's y," sparks a 5-second psychosis: cannot tell if he's exhaling the AI language virus. Moral panic in my body. Covid memories of animated air particle graphics. Bad news: this is already a disease
We gotta start talking about the use of LLMs in the peer review as well as in the submissions.
Center = Eryk Salvaggio. Left = members they follow (green edges). Right = members who follow them (blue edges). Top = mutual follows (orange edges, slightly larger). Drag any node to reposition; click to open that profile.