Doctor gave it to me and I reacted paradoxically to it. Worse depression and even more peculiar I picked up smoking again. I never felt such an urge to smoke in my life. Over the years I've been looking for an explanation for that reaction but wasnt able to find anything

Quoting a chatbot in an article that is not related to a chatbot felt offputting and weird. I had to stop reading, because it somehow undermined any interest i had in the article

I dont think so. Admittedtly I live in a peculiar bubble (mix of scientists, artists and programmers) but nobody that I know personally talks about chatbots in neutral terms, let alone in favorable ones.

If we take chatgpt and the ones from the other brands as neutral entities we as a society have a lot of work and self-reflection to do.

Easy and rather unending access to drugs is not that hard to achieve. One might even argue it is easier to achieve as a poor person.

Besides what is a party related disease? Something like an STD, or more akin to a manic episode

Cancer, stroke, dementia; death doesn't care about your numbers, it cares about you

Prince Rogers Nelson and Michael Jackson both had personal doctors who both played a role in their deaths, with drugs that they gave. Similarly Matthew Perry.

This is not an option for ordinary people.

I'd argue that a rich person has more of a reason to develop a severe addiction if the quality of their stuff is more pure and comes with less of a risk

difficulties in life and genetics are more of a reason to decelop a severe addiction. Quality is probably not so much of importance - people still smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.

It feels like we forgot about the opiod epidemic, meth, crack..

Anyhow, I think this derailed enough. I just wanted to point out the weird protestant views of op.

>Humanity has discarded natural selection thanks to modern medicine. Gene mutations that would have meant someone didn't survive now can be treated.

There is still selection going on and it is difficult to argue that it is not natural. The pressures we are exposed to are just not consistent with some idealized natural state and thus seem "unnatural".

Be careful, "natural selection" is a specific descriptor that describes a selection process that is contrasted by "artificial selection". The second one comes up from time to time in human context; we call it "eugenics".

I'd wager it is the strongest. Most of the arguments always argue in quantities. So and so much of energy waster per hour, this many job losses and that growing trend of delusions supported by LLMs.

We've already seen it with climate change. Arguing with statistical factoids is too ethereal for anyone and leads to some kind of fatigue. There is no emotional difference between 100 mWh and 10000 mWh. But a "I had to bring my dog to the vet because chatGPT told me to give it chocolate" will convince anyone to deeply distrust technology.

FAANG and its acolytes deprived us from actual connection with our environment. Judging the argument as weak is sad proof of that.

So how about instead of using the slot-machine that chatGPT is, we go visit our grandma, hug our dad or just get a new houseplant :)

>I feel the opposite, and pretty much every metric we have shows basically linear improvement of these models over time.

Wait, what kind of metric are you talking about? When I did my masters in 2023 SOTA models where trying to push the boundaries by minuscule amounts. And sometimes blatantly changing the way they measure "success" to beat the previous SOTA

Almost every single major benchmark, and yes progress is incremental but it adds up, this has always been the case

We were talking about linear improvements and I have yet to see it

check the benchmarks or make one of your own

I checked the BlEU-Score and Perplexity of popular models and both have stagnated around 2021. As a disclaimer this was a cursory check and I didn't dive into the details of how individuals scores were evaluated.

on what benchmarks? pretty much every major one is linear improvement

I'm not sure what your comment is trying to convey. From my experience Meditations is basic and doesn't offer any substance. Popular Stoicism has a lot of legitimate criticism and is very often misused and glamorized in right-wing spaces. So the label "right-coded" seems appropriate.

All in all your comment caused some confusion. I know a handful of "extreme" left-wing, liberal arts people who are enamoured by "Fanged Noumena" whose author is the infamous nrx, 'hyper-racist' father of accelerationism Nick Land. So the politics don't seem to be the problem.

My gut instinct was that you have fallen for the meme/propaganda, as I have seen similar talking points being repeated on other sites. Maybe you can give me a more detailed explanations of what you're trying to get at.

How "subtle and insidious" is it really? I'd say it is shifting the blame of personal responsability to a website. Me and some of my friends use(d) 4chan and we never fell into the pipeline. To the contrary there is a strong left-wing camarederie. And I'd wager that we recognize subtle right-wing views more easily. One doesn't learn about these views by looking at a twitter screenshot but by engaging them.

We should stop treating right-wing ideology as a mind-parasite. And if we do it anyways, we should accept that some people want to get "infected".

This might be too nitpicky, but isn't believe exactly what one has in absence of evidence?

They're is no evidence that Russell's Teapot is floating out in space in orbit around the sun, AND I don't believe that it's there.

If I said "I STRONGLY believe that a teapot is out there," it would be reasonable to ask me why.

Also (and this is a pet peeve of mine), we're talking about evidence not proof. They're not the same thing. Just because there's evidence that something happened, it doesn't mean that it happened.

Evidence is a thing that you claim could be part of an valid argument that something happened ("is consistent with"). This isn't a universal definition, but there's got to be some separation between proof and evidence. When there's evidence admitted into a court case, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone is guilty. When there's a lot of evidence and still no proof, you can and should (and will) still make a probabilistic case that something did happen.

So I'd agree with and disagree with you. There's no evidence (that you know of) that Russell's Teapot is there, which is why you do not believe it is there. If somebody does believe it is there, but admits that they have no proof that it is there, it would be reasonable to ask what evidence makes them believe that it is there.

Where I obviously agree with is that "belief" can't mean just something you want to think for no particular reason. Or if it does, it's certainly not worth talking about.

4chan and I'm not ashamed of it. Even though it is anonymous you really feel a sense of community. Approach it as a creative writing exercise or as being part of a hive-mind and you'll find enjoyment in it.

The amount of authentic and inspired posts is incredible. And yes it has it's ugly parts, they don't get a lot of traction though. I guess that part of its unattractiveness is deliberate. No advertisers want to touch it and that is probably why it survived for so long.