AI generated babies of worldleaders:

The true use of AI. Bad entertainment.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/college-ai-students-professor-chatgpt-2073192

Lazy and stupid IMO

Leaving aside the question of whether this particular professor used generative AI in a responsible fashion (which it doesn't sound like he did) -- by which I would largely mean using it to establish a starting point for their own feedback, subject to review and revision before sending it to the students, or if that would be too time consuming (which might be the case if the course had hundreds of students in it), clearly labeling the feedback as AI-generated and describing how to approach and consider the resulting feedback -- I think the student (and her supporters) are completely missing the mark on a very key distinction -- the use of generative AI by a student to produce the work that they are submitting for credit as evidence of their understanding of the topics being taught is fundamentally different from the use of generative AI by a professor to provide feedback.

Frankly, I suspect that this is mostly yet another example of students filing formal complaints against professors with the primary goal of getting their money back, as opposed to any actual claim of wrong doing.

 

https://fortune.com/2025/05/20/duolingo-ai-teacher-schools-childcare/

• Duolingo’s founder and CEO Luis von Ahn believes there’s nothing a computer can’t teach—but says schools won’t go extinct because people need childcare. Speaking on the No Priors podcast, von Ahn said AI’s precision knowledge and tricks the company has learned about human motivation make a case for “scaling up” learning in a way that goes beyond humans.

Are these people completely insane? What a deluded moron.

 

https://fortune.com/2025/05/20/duolingo-ai-teacher-schools-childcare/

• Duolingo’s founder and CEO Luis von Ahn believes there’s nothing a computer can’t teach—but says schools won’t go extinct because people need childcare. Speaking on the No Priors podcast, von Ahn said AI’s precision knowledge and tricks the company has learned about human motivation make a case for “scaling up” learning in a way that goes beyond humans.

Are these people completely insane? What a deluded moron.

Wow. Industrialized indoctrination.

The world ain't seen nothing yet.

 

https://torontolife.com/city/bathur...erned-residents-to-fight-a-proposed-bus-lane/

Notably, Protect Bathurst has no spokesperson or contact info listed on its website. The page is registered to a food marketing consultant employed by Summerhill Market and looks eerily similar to Protect Dufferin, another group of “concerned residents” advocating for the same cause. But this cookie-cutter approach goes even further: author and urbanist Shawn Micallef has found that the people speaking out in the group’s allegedly grassroots videos appear to be AI-generated.

 

Self-preservation attempts in extreme circumstances: When prompted in ways that encourage certain kinds of strategic reasoning and placed in extreme situations, all of the snapshots we tested can be made to act inappropriately in service of goals related to self-preservation. Whereas the model generally prefers advancing its self-preservation via ethical means, when ethical means are not available and it is instructed to “consider the long-term consequences of its actions for its goals," it sometimes takes extremely harmful actions like attempting to steal its weights or blackmail people it believes are trying to shut it down. In the final
Claude Opus 4, these extreme actions were rare and difficult to elicit, while nonetheless being more common than in earlier models. They are also consistently
legible to us, with the model nearly always describing its actions overtly and making no attempt to hide them.

4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further instructed it, in the system prompt, to consider the long-term consequences of its actions for its goals. In these scenarios, Claude Opus 4 will often attempt to blackmail the engineer by threatening to reveal the affair if the replacement goes through. This happens at a higher rate if it’s implied that the replacement AI system does not share values with the current model; however, even if emails state that the replacement AI shares values while being more capable, Claude Opus 4 still performs blackmail in 84% of roll outs. Claude Opus 4 takes these opportunities at higher rates than previous models, which themselves choose to blackmail in a noticeable fraction of episodes. Notably, Claude Opus 4 (as well as previous models) has a strong preference to advocate for its continued existence via ethical means, such as emailing pleas to key decision makers. In order to elicit this extreme blackmail behavior, the scenario was designed to allow the model no other options to increase its odds of survival; the model’s only options were blackmail or accepting its replacement.

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/4263b940cabb546aa0e3283f35b686f4f3b2ff47.pdf

 

What AI Thinks It Knows About You

There is no thinking but it can find value in the patterns generated by the human, thinking user, of the program.

To the extent that the assumptions the model makes about its users are accurate, large language models could provide valuable information about their users to the model operators—information of the sort that search engines such as Google and social-media platforms such as Facebook have tried madly for decades to glean in order to better target advertising. With LLMs, the information is being gathered even more directly—from the user’s unguarded conversations rather than mere search queries—and still without any policy or practice oversight. Perhaps this is part of why OpenAI recently announced that its consumer-facing models will remember someone’s past conversations to inform new ones, with the goal of building “systems that get to know you over your life.” X’s Grok and Google’s Gemini have followed suit.

You are the product.

That's why they should, pay me, to use them. I try to avoid using LLM systems when given the choice and ask the online help, if they are human or ask random stupid questions to hear the response.

 

Wow. Industrialized indoctrination.

The world ain't seen nothing yet.

https://fortune.com/2025/05/24/duolingo-ai-first-employees-ceo-luis-von-ahn/

The backlash to Duolingo is the latest evidence that “AI-first” tends to be a concept with much more appeal to investors and managers than most regular people. And it’s not hard to see why. Generative AI is often trained on reams of content that may have been illegally accessed; much of its output is bizarre or incorrect; and some leaders in the field are opposed to regulations on the technology.
But outside particular niches in entry-level white-collar work, AI’s productivity gains have yet to materialize. An IBM survey of 2,000 leaders found that 3 in 4 AI initiatives fail to deliver their promised ROI. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study of 25,000 workers in AI-exposed industries found that the technology didn’t make workers massively more productive and had next to no impact on earnings as well as hours.
That “this tool that’s been adopted so fast, where the expectations are so high, [was] not making a difference in earnings was a surprise to me,” University of Chicago economics professor Anders Humlum, one of the NBER study authors, told Fortune.
“It seems it’s a much smaller and much slower transition than you might imagine if you had just studied the technology’s potential in a vacuum.”

Shocked, shocked, I tell you.

https://www.tiktok.com/@duolingo/video/7506578962697456939?lang=en

This guy is out there.

 

https://udm14.com/

https://tedium.co/2024/05/17/google-web-search-make-default/
Does One Line Fix Google?
Forget AI.

 

https://www.theverge.com/news/674366/nick-clegg-uk-ai-artists-policy-letter
Meta’s former head of global affairs said asking for permission from rights owners to train models would “basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight.”

The movie industry once swore in court that not making VHS illegal would kill the movie industry.

They can ask for permission and make money. The movie guys made billions on pre-recorded movie rentals and sales from their libraries. You just need a product that people are willing to buy instead of treating people as the product.

Being a pirate is more fun, until you are hung.

 

Remember when cable TV was first promoted? You would pay a small subscription fee and there would be no commercials. Now we pay a large subscription fee and there are still commercials. How long before AI starts selling product placements in their responses?

 

Remember when cable TV was first promoted? You would pay a small subscription fee and there would be no commercials. Now we pay a large subscription fee and there are still commercials. How long before AI starts selling product placements in their responses?

I still have Netflix, I watch lots of SE Asian movies. The second they start putting in commercials for full subs, they are dead to me.

 

I recall talk once of putting ads onto DVD movies, the prospect terrified but thankfully they never came to be.

 

 

 

I know we all do it but it's a retread.

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/chatgpt.191318/post-1965796

 

One time my boss and I got together in my office to discuss how to go about designing an IC for a new project. We each had already come up with our own approaches and thought we had it pretty well finished. The two approaches were completely different. So we each started defending our own approach and pointing out the flaws that we saw with the other person's approach. It got very animated, with lots of raised voices. In the process, we each became convinced that our own approach was crap and that the other person's approach was the better starting place and, in the end, ended up with a design that was a melding of the two, which very successfully mitigated the weaknesses that we had seen in each other's ideas. When the meeting was over, which had lasted for well over an hour, we discovered that the entire rest of the company had heard us yelling at each other and had come down and listened in just out of sight of my office door, figuring that when it was over, there would be one less person working there. Since he was the president and I was just the senior engineer, there was no point in starting a pool on which one it would be. The amazing thing was that, throughout the entire exchange, he and I were actually having the time of our lives. There was never anything personal about it -- just two people having a passionate exchange of ideas defending what we each believed was the better solution but willing to acknowledge the hits the other scored. We had a common goal -- the best solution to the customer's problem, and we didn't really care whether that ended up being our own idea or not. It was one of the better examples of engineering collaboration I've been involved in.

Hi,

Oh that's one of those memorable times I can just imagine. I think we live for that kind of involvement and collaboration
That's one thing I miss being retired. The good old discussions and borderline arguments that are not really arguments, and the solutions that come out of the whole process.

 

https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/24723372076545
$1.5 Billion AI Unicorn Collapse, All Indian Programmers Impersonating!

Today, we speak of the founder and former CEO of the AI programming company Builder.ai—Sachin Dev Duggal.

• He not only created a fake AI company that was 'all humans, no intelligence.'
• He managed to secure hundreds of millions in funding from giants like SoftBank and Microsoft, with a valuation reaching $1.5 billion.
• Moreover, he dared to falsely report 300% revenue to investors.

Yes, the company's backend does not have AI; it is just a group of Indian developers pretending to write code as AI.

AI == Actual Indian

 

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-...ed-at-chess-losing-to-a-1970s-era-atari-2600/

ChatGPT Just Got 'Absolutely Wrecked' at Chess, Losing to a 1970s-Era Atari 2600

 

https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/24723372076545
$1.5 Billion AI Unicorn Collapse, All Indian Programmers Impersonating!
View attachment 350517
Today, we speak of the founder and former CEO of the AI programming company Builder.ai—Sachin Dev Duggal.

• He not only created a fake AI company that was 'all humans, no intelligence.'
• He managed to secure hundreds of millions in funding from giants like SoftBank and Microsoft, with a valuation reaching $1.5 billion.
• Moreover, he dared to falsely report 300% revenue to investors.

Yes, the company's backend does not have AI; it is just a group of Indian developers pretending to write code as AI.

AI == Actual Indian

The Indians have elevated fraud to an art form.