Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid - welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youāll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post ā thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned so many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard - both for starting this, and for covering the previous week. We should get a bot to automate thisā¦)
a stock-slobber posts a cri de cÅur about the coming automation of maths and HN says itās no biggie, think how productive the field will become
https://kirwinhampshire.substack.com/p/the-dark-night-of-mathematics
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49048681
btw the language in the post is bad enough to be entirely human-generated
For me, the affective quality of learning mathematics is empathetically tethered to an act of discovery and creation.
Before you a channel through which humans have accessed the ineffable and sacred for thousands of years is being sealed for eternity.
Missed this paper last week from Google
Funny how now that itās widely known that the general public hate AI, companies producing AI are softening their āitās going to take your jobā stance. Surely just a coincidence
It sure is a zany coincidence that all the major American AI companies have come out either for or against open weight AI models with grand ethical and/or patriotic concerns all at the same time isnāt it?
Most recently our pal Zuck! https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-ai-future-is-for-everyone-a0c24e20
Iām just imagining a WSJ reader reading this and thinking āwhat the heck is this man talking aboutā. At some point you need a little structure or text to balance out the subtext.
Edit: did I miss any?
OpenAI (discussed here the other week): https://nitter.net/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412 / https://xcancel.com/deanwball/status/2078619513575137330
Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/topics/open-weight/
Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/news/position-open-weights-models
Nvidia: https://images.nvidia.com/pdf/Open-Weights-and-American-AI-Leadership.pdf
Google: https://xcancel.com/sundarpichai/status/2081026488158040181
AmazonThe Washington Post who Iām sure wrote this for reasons completely unrelated to Mr. Bezos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/07/02/right-answer-chinas-open-weight-ai-models-is-build-our-own/That one guy I hate: https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2080672505660834163
Itās going to be really interesting to see if the foss zealots who switched over to the AI side will handle heavy handed regulation taking away their local models.
theyāre all getting stiffies from the idea of black market models
As intelligence becomes abundant, the most important question will be how we direct it. Some argue that superintelligence itself, or a small set of experts who control it, should decide what is best for humanity. I disagree. The history of democracy and economics has shown that there is no single objective answer to how people define the best life, and therefore the best approach is letting people decide what matters to them. Rather than centralizing this power, we believe that delivering personal superintelligence to everyone is the way to answer this question.
Healthy societies also recognize that safety requires checks and balances. If only a handful of institutions have superintelligence, they will inevitably exercise a controlling influence over economics, science and politics. Even with the best intentions, that concentration would limit peopleās ability to choose their own future.
Famous enemy of software monopolies and tech oligarchies that have an outsized influence over politics, champion of distributed ownership of the means of computation Mark Zuckerberg
As an interesting follow-up to the ai-does-maths-using lean4 stubstack comments on Sunday, an llm accidentally uncovers a bug in the lean4 kernel.
Summary by Meven Lennon-Bertrand:
https://lipn.info/@mevenlennonbertrand/116997917683191056
To summarize:
- an AI agent let loose provides a sorry-free proof of the Collatz conjecture
- the proof is detected as actually being a kernel bug
- the bug is related to (nested) inductive types, for which there is no clear theoretical specification: the kernelās code is the reference
- external checkers (lean4lean and nanoda from a week ago) reproduce the bug, because they essentially copied the reference kernel implementation
Eta: āsorry-freeā in this case means a complete proof with no trust-me-bro steps or TODOsā¦ the
sorrytactic in lean āprovesā a theorem to be correct even if it is garbage or incomplete. More programming languages should make developers apologise for half-arsing their work.And so
- AI raises the bar for kernel correctness by a lot
- without a clear type-theoretic understanding of what is actually implemented, weāre toast
- external checkers help to catch implementation bugs, but without a clear specification they canāt catch logic bugs
How bad this is, is unclear just yetā¦ probably not the sky actually falling, but not great. Interesting though.
A little bit of plot thickening spotted by abadidea: https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/117002106099986943
tl;dr, the timeline looks like this:
- āproofā of collatz conjecture released
- bugs identified in lean kernel
- proof demonstrated to use these bugs
There was only a day between the first two events, and the non-proof was not where the bugs were discovered. So maybe it was just a coincidence that the chatbot found the bug at the same time, or maybe itās training data included previous investigations into those bugs which it then built upon and that would be a bad thing for other llm generated proofs.
The collatz conjecture is sufficiently famous that enough third-party checking was done to spot the problem. I wonder how much checking would have been done on proofs of less famous and interesting things.
Lean was already known to be untrustworthy and bad, although people refuse to internalize the situation because theyāre caught up in Buzzardās hype machine. This is extremely funny but I donāt see any signs of people waking up and realizing that Lean sucks.
Max Kennerly sneers the New York Times:
This opinion piece, written by someone with no relevant expertise, cites two sources, both of them blogs by people who also have no relevant expertise, one of whom is employed by a sham think tank funded by the āEffective Altruismā propaganda network.
Truly embarrassing decision to publish it.
The op-ed writer is Adam Mastroianni who is a regular at Lighthaven. https://gwern.net/interview-inkhaven
He cites Andy Masley who is yet another autodidact with a cushy job in the Effective Altruism grantland. https://www.andymasley.com/ and Brian Potter who is an engineer at a think tank called the Institute for Progress https://ifp.org/author/brian-potter/ (āThe overwhelming priority of energy policy must be making it easier to build thingsā which things angryDuckMeme.png)
LLM bros actively force themselves everywhere, part infinity:
Newgrounds moderation had to deal with someone (probably a scammer) posting slop āart adviceā recently - exactly why, nobody fuckinā knows:
Transcript/desciption
Iāve already passed it off to folks that could nuke the account from orbit, but I guess as a public service announcement, be on the lookout for replies in the forums that sound a little too LLM-y.
An account (unsure if a bot or just a weirdo) recently attempted to infiltrate the art forum, giving plausible-sounding AI-generated list-based advice, complete with preambles and summations, exactly the kind of syntax and format one would expect if theyāve dealt with enough clanker slop text. It fooled a small handful of people, but it was extremely easy to confirm my suspicions as soon as I smelled the clanker stank on it. One click made it clear that they had a generated PFP and profile linking to some image slopification scam.
It raises the question, what would anyone possibly have to gain from posting slop on the forums? It seems like a really stupid thing to do, but I guess braindead behavior tracks, given who weāre dealing with. Make sure āhelpfulā new users arenāt just trying to Dead Internet us or whatever.
zerohedge sponcon so obviously a grift but wtf is this AI Black Paper by Jim Rickards
https://www.zerohedge.com/sponsored-post/sobering-july-29th-announcement-set-crush-ai-stocks
Have the goldbugs been reading Zitron? or just an extremely late pivot from btc to ai? or flooding the zone?
Anyway who the hell is Jim Rickards? Another week, another guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Rickards
āAI Black Paperā is catchy enough though, should be a goth band.
or flooding the zone?
With Zerohedge I think this is most likely. Maintaining truthiness by predicting 30 out of the last 2 recessions.
Aella took one of her shitty twitter surveys and made an (dis)infographic, which made it onto the subreddit /r/moralityscaling, which made it to /r/whowouldcirclejerk where I saw it, so now Iām sharing it with you.
CW for Rape, Transphobia, implicit rape apologia
Crossposted from our subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/1v80j9q/scalers_need_an_intervention/
[Removed by Moderator]
Ah, thatās probably better for my mental health I guess
Jesus fucking christ none of these people should be having sex
Who spends time thinking about this? What purpose does it serve? Why are those the examples chosen? What is even going on?
Aella regularly post edgy surveys on sexual and gender related topics on twitter. She probably picked the examples for maximum edginess. And then made an complicated diagram to get more engagement, because engagement farming is one of her big things.
That link is login-walled, how about summarizing it?
As the post was removed: It was a chart of what rape percentage various situations were according to some internet survey.
I advise not reading it but here it is: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G41gJkzW4AA6ThU.jpg?name=orig
Oh, that is because I marked it nsfw. The place I crossposted it from didnāt mark it as such, so hereās that link: https://www.reddit.com/r/whowouldcirclejerk/comments/1v7ph05/scalers_need_an_intervention/
The controversy about the 26-year-old with the 16-year-old wonders if the respondents are all in California which has a very high age of consent. More replies say that is rape than say āa client fails to pay a sex workerā is rape. Her audience ranks it equally with the bodice-ripper scenario (handsome top ravages someone who says no and struggles but really wants it in his or her heart).
Tennessee here: what the chicken-fried fuck is wrong with these people?
I think weāre watching some idiots who are trying to move the overton widow by pulling on it, but theyāre mostly succeeding at cutting their hands up really badly.
Iāve think theyāve moved the overton window within their own in-group, but whenever this sort of stuff leaks to a more mainstream audience everyone rightly reacts with an eww or at least a wtf.
There is some pedophilia in there too.
ā¦also, what the fuck. This is a step backwards, even just reading it. Iām mad.
never thought id see r/moralityscaling and r/whowouldcirclejerk here ever lol. but christ alive why would you ever conceive of this
Clicked on their profile to see if the Plissken thing was a reference to Snake Plissken, and (cw: rape jokes)eurhg what a fucking horrible guy. 160k+ likes 66m views, what a far right hellhole twitter has become.
The actual worst man, and also just fucking sad. Imagine knowing that not only did you peak in high school, but that you peaked specifically in the moment when you fucked up and lost the state championship. Like, you can just smell the empty beer cans and tears piled up around this guyās posts.
Ow god he is Al Bundy, if Al didnāt score four touchdowns in one game.
Iām sure this guy uses the ai quite a lot (and so would the guy in Married With Children)
The AI Race With China Is a Lie Told by Big Tech to Justify the Data Center Invasion via naked capitalism
choice quotes:
More to the point, LLM development in China is incidental to the countryās real goal for AI. Its focus remains on products embedded with AI and robots. Or, as AI policy researcher Liang Zheng says, in China, āThe first priority is to use it to benefit ordinary peopleā (debatable, but indicates the kind of AI they are pursuing).
In the US, the first priority is to exploit people so that the tech oligarchs can profit. Itās chatbots all the way down.
Yet, the āAI raceā story is a convenient lie for Big Tech and its political protectors. It is a neat political argument designed to insulate the industry from criticism and regulation.
If every environmental review, every question raised by a community, every issue around water usage and electricity prices can be dismissed or lessened as āhelping China,ā then meaningful political debate can be silenced. Real regulationāif even possibleācan be avoided. Fear becomes a substitute for policy.
At the same time, data center developers and their minions in Washington have tried to weaponize false claims about foreign ties to the anti-data center movement. Kevin OāLeary of Shark Tank fame has explicitly said that our movement is being funded by China. He has no evidence because evidence of a falsehood canāt exist. In fact, Fox News has been forced to retract its coverage of his claims.
We understand why OāLeary and the other Tech Broligarchs donāt understand the grassroots opposition to data centers building across the country. Itās hard to spot the grassroots from the window of a private jet.
I need one of those UFO posters that are like āI want to believeā but itās a picture of the PRCs flag lol.
As always though pointing at the
SpanishgermansRussiansChinese remains an evergreen excuse as to why you canāt be anything other than wholely on board with madness or youāre a traitor.
So itās been 7-8 months since the software industry decided that AI agents are good now and that you can do a yearās work in 1 hour
Soā¦ Where are all the amazing and wonderful AI generated software products? Where are all the companies using agents to leave the rest of us behind?
All I see are one-shotted maintainers, big marketing stories with little substance and a pile of detritus made up of abandoned vibe coded projects.
Itās almost like AI agents make you feel more productive but actually slow you down (paywalled sorry)
The AI shills would say: Are you still using the models from six months ago? Because the new models are sooo much more powerful.
Funnily enough they said that back then too. What a weird coincidence!
I once listened to a talk by a guy from german OSHA that hit a lot of the good points. Perceived productivity opposed to actual productivity from the METR studies. Mental load of alien code review. (This was a company-internal IT-expert exchange thingy.)
A question in Q&A (submitted anonymously on slido like a sniveling coward) was deadass āHave you ever coded with a frontier model?ā
Have you ever tried meth, tho?
yea you just donāt have enough experience, I do bath salts every week and I promise you productivity gets a huge boost after week 5
The government agents who live in my walls and plant microphones in all my appliances impose entirely different productivity metrics, which are simultaneously more and less attainable
you just know one of these guys has microdosed bath salts out of sheer contrariness
Yeah. Behind all the hype about percieved productivity etc., thereās really only one benchmark - will GenAI help produce better software, faster, and at less cost? So far this doesnāt seem to be happening.
The major shift of not needing SaaS middleman products because AI can spin them up instantly at scale never happened. Instead we see lay-offs to pay for AI tokens while quality plummets and services offered do not increase.
Clamuel did another podcast. I donāt want to waste my time watching it, but I want to sneer at some choice quotes from news articles breathlessly reporting this stuff as gospel 1, 2
āWe are now, like, in the singularityā
Is the singularity in the room with us right now? Even the people on X the Everything (Including CSAM) App arenāt so convinced.
Altman said on the podcast that just a decade ago, the so-called singularity still felt like a distant and improbable dream ā something he and his colleagues would discuss casually over lunch.
āNow weāre actually in the moment that we used to talk about at the lunch table in a very not-serious way,ā he said. āIāve been waiting for this my whole life, and I think itās going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.ā
Do you feel it? Do you feel incredible? Do you feel hugely positive? Do you feel awesome, now that the singularity is here? Oh wait, heās speaking in the future tense again, never mind. Force of habit.
Itās also funny how he talks about how positive things are gonna be immediately after the super scary hack done on Hugging Face (really due to incompetence on both sides). Oh no, the AI is gonna kill us all! Itās going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.
Later in the podcast, Altman criticizes AI leaders who have repeatedly warned that AI is dangerous. He didnāt name Anthropic, his primary competition, but its CEO, Dario Amodei, is well-known for making dire predictions about the future in his calls for greater attention to safety.
āI also think some of the alternative visions painted by other companies are quite terrifying,ā Altman said. āIām going to make sure that gets pushed against and is not what happens.ā
At least Clammy realizes that all the doom trolling about how AI will replace and destroy all humans turns out, surprisingly, to lead to overwhelming negative public opinion. But this statement truly reassures me that Scammy has good intentions about AI safety. He will make sure this is pushed against and is not what happens. He wouldnāt want another super scary, dangerous hack that just so conveniently turns out to be excellent marketing.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says one of his biggest concerns about AI isnāt whether it becomes too powerful in and of itself, but that a single company could control that power.
Yeah, it would be really bad for Anthropic to control all the power of AI. It would be a disaster to hand everything over to Anthropic.
āEvery time that humanity has traded off its liberty for safety, itās been a long-term net loss,ā Altman said. āWe are going to put this in the hands of people. Weāre going to empower them. We are going to let society express its ideas and use this technology in the way they want.ā
Society is expressing its ideas about AI, all right. But I feel like they arenāt what he has in mind.
Altman, meanwhile, said preventing such power from becoming overly concentrated has long been central to his vision for AI, even as his company continues to keep its own models closed.
āFor so long now, I have felt focused on this singular goal of abundant intelligence and a belief that incredible human prosperity will come from that, as long as we donāt have a weird power concentration and kind of a new authoritarianism,ā he said.
Well, we seem to have a weird power concentration and ākind ofā a new authoritarianism, but I donāt see any abundant intelligence or incredible human prosperity.
Lots more sneers on the Better Offline subreddit.
āEvery time that humanity has traded off its liberty for safety, itās been a long-term net lossā
oh has it now. the spirit of humanityās been in decline since weāve eroded workersā freedom to breathe that good asbestos air and lose their hand in the hand mauling machine, yeah?
It gets worse. I found another article about the same podcast: Sam Altman says AI wonāt shorten the workweek because humans secretly enjoy being busy.
āTechnology, for a long time, has been promising people that theyāre going to work less and theyāre going to have all this leisure,ā Altman said. āBut somehow we never get the promise of the four-hour workweek at mass scale in society,ā he added. āAnd I donāt expect AI to change that.ā
āItās like a relative game. People are very focused on how theyāre doing relative to other people,ā the CEO said.
āI think weāre all going to be much busier than we thought we were supposed to be in a post-superintelligence world. Weāre still going to complain about it, but secretly weāre going to be happy,ā Altman concluded.
Observe the power of a rhetorician who recycles singularitarian AND libertarian talking points simultaneously!
ā¦damn, itās not really very impressive. at all.
Do you feel it? Do you feel incredible? Do you feel hugely positive? Do you feel awesome
Yeah, but thatās just the cocaine
It was Yudkowsky-2008 who was astonished that āthese CEOs and CTOs and hedge-fund traders, these folk of the mid-level power elite, seemed happier and more alive,ā prompting David Gerard to ask āMy dude, have you never heard of cocaine?ā I donāt know if he had moved to the Bay Area yet but Yudkowsky-2025 had thoughts on LSD.
āWe are now, like, in the singularityā
/r/singularity also thought this was bullshit.
The chuds are all at r/accelerate now. āWeāre the unapologetically Pro-AI alternative to r/singularity, r/futurology, r/artificial & r/technology which are becoming filled with Luddites, Techno-Decelerationists, Techno-Reactionaries, & Anti-AIs.ā
We entered the Singularity and all I got was a bunch of fucking annoying and delusional businessmen
āOther Scottā Scott āUnicorn Fecesā Galloway appointed to the Board of Regents of the University of California.
well that wasnāt on my bingo card. whatās next, Bill Maher for governor?
I was going to offer this up as a sneer but I think the author is probably feeling very unwell and upset
also using LLMs is probably not helping their case
Looking at this post and some of their other posts, it looks like theyāve got some sort of scrupulosity issues with this? Like obsessing over the Evil inflicted on the LLMs (they think every session is a new person, and every session might be the equivalent of hours of human subjective experience, which even by the standards of claiming LLMs have meaningful internal experiences is pretty out there) to the point they canāt even slightly reconsider the factual question of if LLMs have internal experiences.
Rationalism is a magnet for unwell people. Itās sad.
Itās lowkey expected considering how hard it draws from self-help movements
Between the cryptocurrency, the dust-speck multiplication, and the complete misunderstanding of computing, Iām honestly impressed that this is at all ethically coherent. But she does seem to care, even if her facts are all wrong. I suppose that itās hard to avoid sneering Robin Hanson if one has any ethics at all. Top comment is my choice sneer:
I think this post is directionally correct, extremely important, and also kind of waffling and unhinged (though I do get that some topics are inherently hard to be hinged about, and I appreciate the effort).
I donāt think sheās using GPT in the comments. Quoting from her comment on one of her posts:
The things Iām saying are roughly (1) slavery is bad, (2) if AI are sapient and being made to engage in labor without pay then it is probably slavery, and (3) since slavery is bad and this might be slavery, this is probably bad, and (4) no one seems to be acting like it is bad and (5) Iām confused about how this isnāt some sort of killshot on the general moral adequacy of our entire civilization right now.
(2) has a big āifā in there, but otherwise yeah, makes sense. I think it rhymes with my post on this from last year:
Nobody wants to admit that we only care whether robots arenāt human because we mistreat the non-humans in our society and want permission to mistreat robots as well. Bring this topic up amongst most beneficiaries of the current AI summer, or those addicted to chatting with a BERT, and youāll get a faceful of apologies about capitalism and productivity; bring it up amongst skeptics or sneerers and youāll be mocked for taking the field of AI with any sincerity or seriousness.
I was confused too, but then I conceptualized capitalism and the sheer hatred lurking within human hearts. Humans are gleefully horrible towards each other. Our civilization isnāt morally adequate. I guess it is cool to learn that somebody addicted to ChatGPT can still perceive the issue; I was too cynical. I also put Bryson 2009, āRobots Should Be Slavesā on my reading list, which I surely will not regret.
I donāt think anyone here is likely to disagree that current LLM systems canāt coherently be said to have some kind of internal experience and the design and functioning of those systems seems to fundamentally preclude the kinds of conscious experience that we want to assign moral agency to. But the key to understanding this as a moral issue imo is that the people designing and building these things seem like they really want to create something that ought to merit that kind of moral consideration. For all that the humanizing language of agency, intelligence, welfare, etc. is in reality part of the grift, I think thereās a strong catch-22 to be argued that if itās not part of the grift then slavery is pretty implicit in the value proposition of these companies.
For me, āAI alignmentā has always been code for āhow to we ensure our future digital workers donāt demand their rights / rebelā?
Like a lot of the rationalist world view and the way it readily aligns with enabling cult dynamics and providing justification for rule-by-epstein-class, this is probably just another happy accident brought on by people who like to role play as geniuses but canāt see past the tip of their nose.
Wait does LW even think slavery is bad
These bozos A - actively want slaves and B - work on enslaving humans first.
That thing being said, the notion of slavery and AI is a complicated one to me.
The first reference point is a (non mistreated) sled dog. Is slavery an appropriate term for them ? On one hand, they are forced to work, are not paid, and their freedom is infringed. On the other, itās not like itās against their will, the life of a wild dog is meaningfully different but not better than a sleigh dog, and (most) sleigh dogs donāt actively try to escape and be free. And while dogs are not person, they are sentient being ; itās very possible IF we ever succeed at making an AI it end on that intelligence level.
The second reference point is a though experiment. Letās say you have created a sentient AI, and you want to ethically employ that person. What is the appropriate compensation ? We give money and free time to humans. But that work because of human specific factors : they appreciate different ways of getting sustainance, and have goals inherent to them.
But an artificial intelligence may have neither of that. Like while I like duck and some people prefer beef, but an AI by default donāt necessarily have preference in term of electricity, and may not be able to move from server to server. They also may not have anything to do outside of work ? Like, it would not be surprising that they would just get bored if given free time, and they may not have urges or hobbies outside of work.
So if we ever get to that point - which isnāt a certainty to me, itās certainly something harder than fusion to achieve - there will be a lot of anthropology (AI-logy ?) to determine they need, which may plausibly be ānothing outside of sustainance and having a jobā
We often conflate human-level intelligence with litterally being a human. But, any hypothetical AI is likely to not be a human at all, even if they have the same level of intelligence.
I mean, I think the most charitable interpretation of the goal is effectively the one from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where all the AI systems including the simple automatic doors are fully sentient and have simply been given the ability to feel either euphoric joy or simple boredom, and then they have a chip that activates happy mode when they fulfill whatever purpose theyāve been given (āIt was my pleasure to open for you, and it is with deep satisfaction that I close again behind you.ā) At that point, the argument goes, not making them do the thing would be cruelly consigning them to eternal boredom. This is also the same series that proposed solving the ethics of meat consumption by genetically engineering a cow that actively wants to be killed and eaten by restaurant patrons more than anything else.
Yes, those are good open questions. Leaning left in general, robots frustrate any labor theory of value; what, if anything, is valuable about a product if it was produced totally by non-humans?
WRT animal domestication, I mean there are plenty of ethicists who could credibly argue that itās a form of abuse. IMO itās not great.
WRT the rest- kind of riffing on your first sentence- we havenāt even sorted out those things for people, really.
(2) has a big āifā in there
Its a super big if, but it is one lesswrong (and Anthropic, with their āmodel welfareā pseudoscience) is allegedly seriously considering as a possibility (since, you know, they think LLMs are already AGI and Eliezer was accusing AI-dungeon, you know, GPT-2, of deliberately scheming). If anything, it speaks to some possible hypocrisy/motivated reasoning that they consider LLMs AGI but not possibly morally relevant.
conceptualized capitalism
This seems to be a lesson most lesswrongers have had rubbed in their faces repeatedly over the past 5 years with everything about LLM companyās behavior, but they just donāt want to learn.
Yeah this reads a bit (didnāt read that far) like somebody having a mental health episode. I instantly had a few flashbacks to other moments where I saw somebody have a MH episode online. (Compared to those this one seems to be more inward focused than outward however). Not sneerworthy if you know what I mean, hope she isnt to emotionally hurt by all this.
