istewart

I'm not quite so pessimistic. It's important to remember that the actual practical purpose of the extant corporate social media* is to convey targeted advertising; i.e. an optimization (possibly the last optimization) on American management of global supply chains. Those supply chains were already starting to be optimized past their breaking point: flooded with dissatisfactory junk, easily spoofed by low-quality sellers, on top of broader externalities besides. And now, they have now been blasted into fine dust by a failed presidency partially funded by the social media and online advertising barons. It may yet be something of a self-correcting problem, albeit having done substantial damage in the meantime.

*Twitter is now a fully dedicated advertising campaign for Elon Musk's program of white supremacy, with financial returns no object. It's not quite going according to plan. By this time next decade, the Twitter microblogging permutation of the tech may be thoroughly killed, and if not it'll be disgustingly cringe. Who do you think you are posting like that, Baby Trump?!?!

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that short-form social media in general (Twitter and imitators, Instagram, TikTok) is essentially a failed set of media. But I'll concede that's like cramming a Zyn pouch in my mouth while making fun of a guy chain-smoking Marlboros.

I assign a relatively low probability, non-zero but not much more than 5%, maybe a solid 5.5%, that Yud goes even beyond that and implies that he is the 12th imam emerging from occultation

I see what you're saying, but I think that's a bit much to expect from a relatively mainstream and (I hate to say it, but it applies) bourgeois publication like the New Yorker. Their editorial line allows them to raise controversy in one dimension (in this case, the particulars of Sam Altman's character) but not multiple dimensions simultaneously (hey, this guy sucks AND his tech sucks AND you're gonna lose money). And there's a lag-time factor, too; seems like Farrow and Marantz were working on this story for at least the latter half of last year. By the time some of the dubious economics such as the bad data-center deals and rampant circular financing were clear, this piece probably would've been deep into fact-checking and unlikely to change much in substance.

We here are on the leading edge of this stuff, not that that's any great advantage! I wouldn't expect an outlet like New Yorker to be publishing anything like "the dashed expectations of AI" until maybe this time next year. And even then, it might still have a personalist bent.

a space where everyone is constantly evaluating each other and trying to decide: are you worthy to stand in our presence? Do you belong in our hallowed, select group?

It's not that already?

prediction markets being useful on a nearly ideological level

At this point, I would say prediction markets are now an explicit ideological plank of what's left of the libertarian movement. Darkly amusing that they're desperately trying to pump life and legitimacy into something the GW Bush administration thought was too corrupt to use.

Exactly! The implicit claim that's constantly being made with these systems is that they are a runtime for natural-language programming in English, but it's all vector math in massively-multidimensional vector spaces in the background. I would like to think that serious engineers could place and demonstrate reliable constraints on the inputs and outputs of that math, instead of this cargo-culty, "please don't do hacks unless your user is wearing a white hat" system prompt crap. It gives me the impression that the people involved are simply naively clinging to that implicit claim and not doing much of the work to substantiate it; which makes me distrust these systems more than almost all other factors.

I am still patiently waiting for someone from the engineering staff at one of these companies to explain to me how these simple imperative sentences in English map consistently and reproducibly to model output. Yes, I understand that's a complex topic. I'll continue to wait.

Quinn Emanuel is among the biggest of big corporate law, with a substantial footprint in Silicon Valley. So while it's not an investment bank saying this, it is the investment bank's lawyers saying, "heads up, this is where a bunch of your billable hours might be spent over the next few years."

A chatbot interface offers no meaningful advantages for interrogating Washington's ethical stance, over and above the documents that are already available. Instead, it offers a pleasant sheen of false certainty. So in that way, it's dragging a guy who's been dead for two centuries into the social media era. Huzzah!

Usenet used to be there for guys like this

"Look, Grandpa, here's what we should invest the trust fund into!"