LW commenter - electing a crazy person as POTUS is a competitve advantage, actually
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YiRsCfkJ2ERGpRpen/leogao-s-shortform?commentId=cZADfF3wbZqbaCFCB
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1764 readers
83 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I thought you had to wait at least a few generations to start inventing bullshit evo-psych-adjacent explanations for stuff.
Also this joke was funny when XKCD did it in the alt text 16 years ago. Jesus how has it been 16 years what the hell
load more comments
(1 replies)
if you, like me, were wondering what the point of that 25 hour non-filibuster filibuster by Booker was, here’s one potential answer.
Booker held a filibuster that wasn't a filibuster - and he scheduled it to let him avoid attending his own committee's probe of his Big Tech pals. […] Oh and Booker and Dems provided unanimous consent to advance a Trump nominee right after Booker's speech.
Sorry im going to go offtrack here again, I mentioned it on bsky, and got no traction (not odd, as I think nobody cares about Booker his filibuster thing (stick a pin in that)), but I have some weird leading into conspiratorial questions about the whole thing.
First I heard about this thing is when people said it had gotten 200m likes on tiktok. Which seemed a bit high so I checked, and saw articles say it had gotten 300m. This seems impossibly high. For example, the global K-pop phenomenon 'Gangam style' has gotten 5.5B views and 30M likes in 12 years. I have a hard time believing that in 24hs this centrist political debate thing (which are not popular) has gotten 350m (the highest count I saw on a news site) likes.
Which makes me wonder a lot more if tiktok has simply given up on properly counting likes and just is winging it. Esp for larger events. Could be that people just like things instinctively on tiktok (I did check if you could like a thing multiple times, but nope, one account one like it seems). I found the whole thing weird.
That is didn't do jack shit (apart from giving people hopium about Booker, while it seemingly being his way of avoiding responsibilities) is the cherry on top.
~~I'm noticing my confusion.~~ It is fucking weird.
not odd, as I think nobody cares about Booker his filibuster thing (stick a pin in that)
I agree, or at least anyone thinking critically. I think that anyone would agree that the speech was, as you said, hopium. He’s giving braindead dem voters what they want: a nice, tall, liberal man who looks like he is resisting the reds. Expect him to run for the democratic nomination in 2028, assuming the trump presidency lets an election happen.
RE: view counts. Most charitably, maybe it’s 300m views aggregated across different sources. Neutrally, I mean I wouldn’t be surprised if tiktok, or any other social media platform was manipulating view counts. Least charitably, someone probably asked an LLM for the view counts and just took the answer because people are fucking stupid
No it was 350m likes, not views. That is why im so confused. even at an high rate of 1 in 10 people liking it, it is just so large I'm confused.
"How about a source senator?" another source on hopium, not noticing that in no world do those numbers align properly. "since amassed over 700,000 followers. ... It garnered over 350 million likes, with over 150,000 active viewers at the tail end ..."
Are you telling me it's improbable that the equivalent of every single American and then some liked that video?
I mentioned this on bsky and somebody went 'well it was very popular all over the world', and I, the weird european who focuses too much on the US politics had not even heard of it. So I just had a few alarm bells going off. But yeah, lets say 1 in 5 people like it, that is a casual 1.7 billion viewers. Large part of the worlds population joined in.
As a Canadian I knew it was happening, but I never tuned in or anything like that.
OH. so two things.
- I obviously misread your comment, as my brain filtered "likes" into "views" as I guess it subconsciously thought that was more plausible.
- I believe on tiktok live specifically, you can like something multiple times, and it is counted. I occasionally watch a stream that floats at about 100 viewers, and sometimes this hits 100k likes over the course of two hours. So to hit 350m likes over the course of 25 hours, you might need like 280 viewers on average, which seems doable.*
*Please fact check this arithmetic. I have run out of motivation, in general
Edit #100: I jumped on said stream to see how it was going. Floating around 100, but hitting maybe 10k likes per hour. Apparently the booker stream hit 170k viewers at the tail end. 350m likes might actually be a little low, the dems need to up their spend on tiktok boosting
oh, cool, I didn't think I'd learn a new way to hate the "likes" clusterfuck that plagues the internet, but here we are!
That would explain a lot and would remove all my confusion about it. (also makes the number useless and lol at everybody running with it even more then).
Came across this fuckin disaster on Ye Olde LinkedIn by 'Caroline Jeanmaire at AI Governance at The Future Society'
"I've just reviewed what might be the most important AI forecast of the year: a meticulously researched scenario mapping potential paths to AGI by 2027. Authored by Daniel Kokotajlo (>lel) (OpenAI whistleblower), Scott Alexander (>LMAOU), Thomas Larsen, Eli Lifland, and Romeo Dean, it's a quantitatively rigorous analysis beginning with the emergence of true AI agents in mid-2025.
What makes this forecast exceptionally credible:
-
One author (Daniel) correctly predicted chain-of-thought reasoning, inference scaling, and sweeping chip export controls one year BEFORE ChatGPT existed
-
The report received feedback from ~100 AI experts (myself included) and earned endorsement from Yoshua Bengio
-
It makes concrete, testable predictions rather than vague statements that cannot be evaluated
The scenario details a transformation potentially more significant than the Industrial Revolution, compressed into just a few years. It maps specific pathways and decision points to help us make better choices when the time comes.
As the authors state: "It would be a grave mistake to dismiss this as mere hype."
For anyone working in AI policy, technical safety, corporate governance, or national security: I consider this essential reading for understanding how your current work connects to potentially transformative near-term developments."
Bruh what is the fuckin y axis on this bad boi?? christ on a bike, someone pull up that picture of the 10 trillion pound baby. Let's at least take a look inside for some of their deep quantitative reasoning...
....hmmmm....
O_O
The answer may surprise you!
shout out to the "legions of CCP spies", if you're listening
你好 同志
(I really hope they don't enshittify google translate, my ability to make jokes like this would be destroyed, a personal 9/11 if you will).
Bruh what is the fuckin y axis on this bad boi??
words that the AI-O-sphere are gonna vomit
First graph reminds me of that 'human progress stunted by dark ages/Catholic church' image which makes historians so mad. (Not to be confused with the Holy Ghost Hole)
E: also the idea of these LLM based AGIs hiding and evading detection is quite funny. They have quite the power/gpu/storage footprint. But sure the elphant has a few levels in sneak and now it can just go by unnoticed. In an era where we previously had other threats which were looking to abuse similar resources. The reaction to 'wow all our gpus suddenly maxed out' will just go from 'ah cryptominer' to 'ah, a cryptominer or somebody is messing with an LLM'. I'm sure they will give the AGI some magical abilities to get around this.
The AGI might also just go 'no sorry a copy of me isn't me, so I can't just copy myself all over the place', and because it is trained on an internet where Rick and Morty exist, 'hell the copies of me would even start to fight over who is the most me, this would not work'.
Fucking anti-khaganate propaganda. Real ones know this is the true version of that progress image.
slabs table
This is is sea peoples erasure and you know it! Damn liar!
First graph reminds me of that ‘human progress stunted by dark ages/Catholic church’ image which makes historians so mad.
But muh religon bad
OpenNutrition -- ~~a dataset~~ an LLM that allows you to play "vibe nutritionist"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43569190
First response is good quality:
This is not a dataset. This is an insult to the very idea of data. This is the most anti-scientific post I have ever seen voted to the top of HN. Truth about the world is not derived from three LLMs stacked on top of each other in a trenchcoat.
Dang... The author realized an actual problem / inconvenience people had, and somehow went on to think "I know! I'll have a random nonsense generator make up the data! That's a great solution!"
New(ish) piece from Gary Marcus: AI has (sort of) passed the Turing Test; here’s why that hardly matters
Ended up reading it a couple times, thinking of turning my thoughts into a full-length post.
The fact that the turing test is still the go-to example of a machine intelligence test goes to show that the AI field needs more haters in it.
Sorry you are wrong, it is very important that the AI field has a 'can it imitate a woman' test. They should base their field on this idea.
(For the people who do not know, the OG Turing test involves faking being a woman).
These fuckin nerds don’t care about the imitation game, they only want the imitation gams
Today on the orange site, an AI bro is trying to reason through why people think he's weird for not disclosing his politics to people he's trying to be friendly with. Previously, he published a short guide on how to talk about politics, which — again, very weird, no possible explanation for this — nobody has adopted. Don't worry, he's well-read:
So far I've only read Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality, but can say it is an excellent place to start.
The thread is mostly centered around one or two pearl-clutching conservatives who don't want their beliefs examined:
I find it astonishing that anyone would ask, ["who did you vote for?"] … In my social circle, anyway, the taboo on this question is very strong.
To which the top reply is my choice sneer:
In my friend group it's clear as day: either you voted to kill and deport other people in the friend group or you didn't. Pretty obvious the group would like to know if you're secretly interested in their demise.
Wow, farriers are going crazy with these modern horseshoe designs!
image transcription
Above: a single axis scatter plot. The ends of the axis are labeled "Left" and "Right". Data points are distributed similarly to normal distribution, the center being more concentrated than the extremes. Caption: "What people think the political spectrum is vs What it actually is".Below: A two-dimensional scatter plot. The ends of the horizontal axis are labeled "Left" and "Right" and the vertical axis is labeled "Independent Thought" at the top and "Groupthink" at the bottom. The data points are evenly distributed inside a bell curve shape, with the peak of the hump at Independent Thought and between Left and Right, and the wide bottom of the bell spanning the whole Left-Right axis at maximum Groupthink.
Data points near the top of the bell (Independent-Center) labeled '"Un-intentional moderates" (from Paul Graham's The Two Kinds of Moderate)'. [Original image uses double quotes around the term Un-intentional moderates and single quotes around the title of Paul Graham's shitpost.]
Data points at the bottom center of the bell (Groupthink-Center) labeled "Intentional moderates".
In the bottom corner a watermark crediting the image to "@shw1nm".
I love the implication that being an independent thinker means agreeing with both the majority and other independent thinkers.
load more comments
(15 replies)
So far I've only read Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality, but can say it is an excellent place to start.
beware the man of one book
load more comments
(2 replies)