Wakko

It doesn’t. This is the system working as designed.

The best way to live a rage-free life is to never, ever learn how the financial system really works.

I used to work for a skip-level manager who openly expressed that he would not approve spending corporate funds on employee certifications, but he would approve spending money on training. He believed that employees who got the certs were more likely to take the knowledge outside the company, while those with only the knowledge were more incentivized to stay.

I exited that company less than a year later, the company itself was bankrupt less than 3 years later.

It’s cute that you think you’re being judged, kiddo.

Give it a couple decades. Maybe with experience, you’ll understand the old saying that youth is wasted on the young.

You don’t know my life, my hardships etc. don’t pretend you do.

You thinking that’s what I’m doing is why I’m saying what I’m saying.

You haven’t yet matured to the point where you understand not everything everyone else says and does is about you. Other people live rich, detailed lives that are completely unlike your own and you will never understand the huge varieties of ways the world works until you get outside your own tiny, self-centered universe.

My point is: not all art is political.

Everything is political. You have just lived such a privileged life that you haven’t been required to see why.

You have “just gotten” things throughout your life that others have had to fight for. And you now take it for granted that everyone has your same experience. Not everyone is so privileged because the people who operate the systems that benefit you, are taking far too much from others in order for you to have those privileges.

As soon as you start seeing the things that others are forced to do that you’ve never had to confront, then you will understand why everything is political. Then you will understand what a disservice you’re doing to your fellow man by not doing your part to ensure everyone else gets the privileges you already take for granted.

Well I’m not conservative. Fuck the conservatives

This is the first thing most conservatives say right before they start offering opinions on traditional gender roles, homophobia, transphobia, isolationism, nationalism, and a whole myriad of other things that tells us you need to read more broadly and stop listening to Joe Rogan.

You should try asking yourself how artists create art. Where did that art come from that you so badly want to disconnect from the artist’s mind that produced it? What ideas is the artist expressing that you’re choosing to ignore?

What ideas did the artist also hold that are the reason the rest of human society decided that this artists art did not need to persist?

For example - These are questions that anyone involved in anything “Lovecraftian” needs to answer for themselves.

Why are conservatives always so upset at the consequences of a free market?

Y’all just cannot fathom how completely most people do not care until it directly impacts them personally.

Once again, you’re trying to analogize your way into something you haven’t studied.

What exactly is your purpose here? You still can’t even articulate the fundamental flaws LLMs have with tasks not fully within the training data. Right now, today, there is no frontier model that can operate on tasks without resorting to reward hacking once its outside the small class of problems its training data covers. The solution for this is to invest significant time from domain experts to meticulously define how to solve tasks in other domains.

Here’s a trivial example: Try getting Claude to generate coherent COBOL. Or TCL. Or even Powershell. Any language that has low representation on StackOverflow is a language that Claude can’t speak until someone teaches it how. Even the Python it generates has limited expressiveness or extensibility.

Everywhere you look, the AI is limited by the fact that it can’t generate its own new information. Navier-Stokes and statements in pure mathematics like it are the absolute best case scenario for agentic work against rigorous specification. The theorem statement itself is already a rigorous specification. It has undergone decades of auditing by the mathematical community and its rendering in Lean is a straightforward translation defined in terms of battle-tested mathematical objects from mathlib. The verifier, the Lean theorem prover, has been extensively audited and specifically designed to avoid the types of unsoundness that would make it vulnerable to reward hacks.

No other domains outside of mathematics have such rigorous specifications. Yet, somehow, you believe there’s magic pixie dust somewhere within the LLM that will help it achieve something without human interventions and that, somehow, we’re “close” to that accomplishment. Don’t quit your day job.

As has been stated, this isn’t new territory. If you’re unfamiliar with information theory, you have some reading to do.

You’re trying to analogize your way into a subject you clearly haven’t studied.

There’s pre-existing research here. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem holds, plus others.

There’s already a known upper bound here that you’re clearly unaware of.

There’s as yet been zero LLM-based architectures that have created new information. Everything they produce is somewhere within the training data. LLMs are a very specialized data compression algorithm, in a fashion.

The stall is around whether Recursive Self-Improvement is achievable. Recent papers out of China are trying to chart a course to it. But, until someone succeeds, The current pace of improvement is already slowing signs of slowing. It’s not about where the finish line is placed, it’s about how fast they get there.

Do you have any benchmarks or data to back this “reckoning”

I work with LLMs daily. I read papers as they hit arxiv. Also daily. You clearly don’t.

I’m not interested in convincing anyone, which is why I’m speaking non-technically.

The benchmarks being cited aren’t as interesting as you appear to believe they are. You’ve not fully grasped the fact that solving pre-made problems where the solutions are known or knowable isn’t anywhere close to the same thing as asking truly novel research questions independent of a human prompt. For OpenAI to also be embroiled in allegations of plagiarism only serves to underscore the gap between the two concepts.

I’m aware of what the pace is. You might want to check up on the current controversy surrounding OpenAI’s math “achievements”.

By my reckoning, the difference between Mythos and Opus is smaller than the difference between Opus and Sonnet. Same with the difference between GPT 5.5 to 5.6 is smaller than the difference between GPT 4 to GPT 5.

The size of improvements over time is diminishing. We’re not in “big bang” territory anymore and we’re about two years into the “incremental refinement” period. We’re about to enter the next AI Winter unless somebody comes up with a new architectural component as revolutionary as transformers have been for ML models.

The core problem is that LLMs do not create. Full stop. All creativity is borne by the human inputs. Until that changes - until the model gains the capability to truly create new information, we’ve hit the limits in raw capability.

Recursive self-improving AI isn’t happening like they expected. AGI is nowhere in sight.

The pace of advancement is slowing down and they need a cover story for why they’re not living up to their own hype.

I don’t think it’s professional use either. I’m suspecting structural racism - the people drawn to companion AIs are likely highly educated but unable to use their education fully in their current role. Just my gut speculation. But I’m curious if there’s enough data to show that kind of correlation.

I think you’re on to something. I think the next logical question to ask is - “What proportion of post-graduate non-Whites land in what kinds of roles?” Is there a reason this demographic is using AI companions more that correlates to the kinds of jobs they’re doing?

It’s much, much worse than that.

To have functional social beings requires social supports that haven’t existed in the USA in decades. It’d be more accurate to say that the vast majority of non-melanated Americans are dysfunctional. Cracker Culture is built on being exploitative, isolating, and abusive toward their fellow human.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

That’s an awful lot of typing instead of just saying “I’m a lying liar who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That’s why I offer no actual data - because the actual numbers destroy my entire argument.”