I've seen that behavior over and over. Just recently (because we are planning a trip to Japan this summer) I was looking for information about visiting Hiroshima and that led to looking up the hypocenter of the nuclear explosion. It gave me information that was self-contradictory. Pointed this out and, after the usual ass-kissing, gave me different contradictory information. I pointed that out, along with an explanations of why it made no sense and what the obvious conclusions would be if it were accepted. After about four rounds of this, it changed and accepted my input as the "ground truth", which was absurd since the whole point of the discussion was because I didn't know what where the hypocenter was! I finally tracked it down independently.

Arguing with an AI saves one the aggravation of arguing with a human. Just another example of how AI increases productivity.

 

Arguing with an AI saves one the aggravation of arguing with a human. Just another example of how AI increases productivity.

I've found that, up to a point, arguing with an LLM can get it to refine its search results better (and that's what I use them for, as a different kind of search engine that has some real advantages, but lots of potholes, too). It's far from an exact science and part of my learning curve is discovering when it is time to give up because things aren't getting any better. Often, the useful thing that comes out of these exchanges is exposing the sources it is drawing upon so that I can go look at those for myself -- and it's revealing how often the sources cites have absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed beyond the casual mention of a couple key words, often in a completely unrelated context.

 

I've found that, up to a point, arguing with an LLM can get it to refine its search results better (and that's what I use them for, as a different kind of search engine that has some real advantages, but lots of potholes, too). It's far from an exact science and part of my learning curve is discovering when it is time to give up because things aren't getting any better. Often, the useful thing that comes out of these exchanges is exposing the sources it is drawing upon so that I can go look at those for myself -- and it's revealing how often the sources cites have absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed beyond the casual mention of a couple key words, often in a completely unrelated context.

I agree: just as when dealing with humans, it's always best to confirm any information provided, especially if the information is of financial, legal, or professional importance.

I mention before that I have found AI useful for quickly rounding up primary sources, and then confirming not only the sources themselves, but that they say what the AI says it says. Cross-checking against secondary sources is also a must. Anyone who takes any information, whether it be word-of-mouth, a Google search, Wiki, or an AI assertion, as prima facie gets the consequences he deserves.

 

Further:

The sad part is that any "corrections" we force out of AI are "local" to our immediate interaction. They are not used to update the AI database for us or anyone else who may look for the same information at a later date.

It's like dealing with an idiot savant with no long term memory.

 

Edit: Grok has a setting that allows it to reference previous discussions within your account. So, there is a bit of personalized long-term memory that I have found marginally useful. I don't know if ChatGPT has the same "feature".

 

Vaporware?

I had suspected that this girl is an AI creation. According to Grok, she is not (I haven't verified this):

Anastasi In Tech (the YouTube channel and podcast host) is a real person, not an AI or AI-generated entity.


Her full name is Anastasiia Nosova (sometimes spelled Anastasia), an Austrian tech entrepreneur and engineer with a background in semiconductor R&D and microchip design (including work at Infineon Technologies). She founded the "Anastasi In Tech" channel, which has hundreds of thousands of subscribers and focuses on explaining complex topics like AI hardware, data centers, chips, and semiconductors.


Evidence confirming she's real includes:

• Professional profiles (LinkedIn under Anastasiia Nosova / anastasiintech, with posts about industry visits like imec and robotics interviews).
• Interviews (e.g., with eeNews Europe discussing AI silicon and the future of chips).
• Personal Q&A videos on her own channel where she shares her background (born in Moscow, education in Russia and Austria, career in chip design).
• Instagram (@anastasi.in.tech) with personal photos (e.g., at Stanford Business School).
• Her own website (anastasiintech.com) detailing her semiconductor startup and mission.
• Consistent coverage across sources like Wikitia, Grokipedia entries, and podcast listings (Deep in Tech / Anastasi In Tech).

Occasional online comments (e.g., on X/Twitter) questioning if she's "too perfect" or AI-generated seem to stem from her polished presentation style or high-production videos—common skepticism toward charismatic tech creators—but there's no credible evidence supporting that claim. In contrast, truly AI-generated "personalities" (like some virtual influencers) lack this level of verifiable real-world professional history, interviews, and physical appearances tied to events/locations.


She's a genuine human in the tech space, building credibility through deep industry knowledge and content.

 

​

 

https://ketanjoshi.co/2026/02/17/big-tech-greenwashing-report/
The AI climate hoax

We have to destroy the planet to save it

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energy-usage-climate-footprint-big-tech/

This isn’t simply the norm of a digital world. It’s unique to AI, and a marked departure from Big Tech’s electricity appetite in the recent past. From 2005 to 2017, the amount of electricity going to data centers remained quite flat thanks to increases in efficiency, despite the construction of armies of new data centers to serve the rise of cloud-based online services, from Facebook to Netflix. In 2017, AI began to change everything. Data centers started getting built with energy-intensive hardware designed for AI, which led them to double their electricity consumption by 2023. The latest reports show that 4.4% of all the energy in the US now goes toward data centers.

 

 

I have limited sympathy for people that are scared of being replaced by AI. I understand their personal concerns, but that doesn't make it some global crisis that must be addressed.

Technology has always made jobs, and sometimes entire industries, go away. That's the nature of living in a dynamic, evolving global society.

Things like mechanical drafting and PCB layout once employed many tens of thousands and are now a fraction of that. The same for countless other tasks, such as typesetting. When I was in the service, there were people at our base whose sole job was to enter data from each maintenance technician on what they did that day, which might involve a dozen forms for a single person (one form for every item they worked on). Those are all gone since that data is now entered directly by the technician at a computer in their shop.

Yet there was no outcry about technology putting these folks out of work, which in many cases involved jobs that they had spent years and lots of money receiving education and training and certifications for.

Even in the areas that we are being inundated with pleas of "something must be done" to save the artists, those same artists have not had any problem adopting technologies that have let them do more things and be more productive while eliminating many jobs related to their industry because they've been automated or that can now be done, often better and in a fraction of the time, by others in addition to their previous duties.

Frankly, if I like a song, I don't care if it was made by a human or an AI or a monkey or a Martian. I listen to songs that I like the sound of. Period. Most of the time, I can't even make out most of the lyrics and, when I can, they don't make much sense and I they seldom convey any kind of a profound message (there are certainly exceptions). I listen because I like the sound of it. If the end result is that, a few decades from now, most music is AI-generated and the number of "artists" has been decimated, I'm fine with that IF the quality of the offerings are better -- and I probably should caveat that a bit with saying that as long as the quality of the top offerings are better, since whether it's today with human artists or tomorrow with AI artists, there will always be no shortage of pure crap that dominates the market place. That's simply a given.

Movies are an area where I'm really hoping that AI gains a strong foothold. Maybe it will then be possible to have the AI make a movie in which a six-shot revolver can't fire two dozen rounds without being reloaded. I'm hoping that there will be settings for the movie maker to request more stringent levels of realism and accuracy and define the bounds of "artistic license" that is to be employed.

Another potential impact might be to reign in the outrageous amounts of money that are thrown at many of these "artists", if they have to compete with much lower-cost alternatives.

 

My point of view is, the problem is not change itself ... the problem is the abruptness of change. And we're living in times in which calling change "exponential" has become an understatement.

 

My point of view is, the problem is not change itself ... the problem is the abruptness of change. And we're living in times in which calling change "exponential" has become an understatement.

Yes and no. In specific things the rate of change is certainly huge and disruptive, but there have always been specific things that have seen "unprecedented" rates of change. The transition to jet aircraft was extremely rapid. In about a decade we went from the first jet airliner carrying passengers to more than half of all airliners being jet powered. That was a tremendously disruptive change across many industries. In our own lifetimes, look at the hugely transformative changes that PCs made in a pretty short time period that, again, were very disruptive as entire career fields essentially went away because no those functions could be done by nearly anyone inhouse. The commercialization of GPS technologies is another. I think it's largely that the "AI revolution" is so much more in-your-face, coupled with some of the industries being impacted being ones that have a big voice because of the celebrities involved (who are celebrities in no small part because they are very adept and being a big voice).

Although not as rapid, another change that made lots of jobs disappear was the automation of phone systems. At one point phone companies employed about 350 thousand operators and most businesses above a pretty small size had at least one full-time receptionist and above a bit larger size had dedicated in house operators to answer phones and direct calls. The total was probably well over a million people, mostly women. I've seen estimates that more than one in ten working women worked at telephone operators or phone receptionists, Over the course of about 25 years more than 90% of those positions went away. Now, it's hard to find a way to reach a human even at companies that only have a few employees.

While I can sympathize with the people whose personal lives are negatively impacted by new technology, I don't take a protectionist stand and want to see those technologies not used just because they will eliminate a lot of jobs. But I do want those technologies to actually be improvements and, by-and-large, I don't see AI, in its current form, meeting that criteria overall. In some aspects, yes. And I'm sure in other aspects that will be the case in the future, the near future in some cases and the distance future in others. What I have an issue with is the overhyping and the blind adoption of any new technology without doing due diligence to see if it is actually an improvement. With a lot of the current use of AI, it is far from an improvement.

 

Vaporware?

I had suspected that this girl is an AI creation. According to Grok, she is not (I haven't verified this):

Anastasi In Tech (the YouTube channel and podcast host) is a real person, not an AI or AI-generated entity.


Her full name is Anastasiia Nosova (sometimes spelled Anastasia), an Austrian tech entrepreneur and engineer with a background in semiconductor R&D and microchip design (including work at Infineon Technologies). She founded the "Anastasi In Tech" channel, which has hundreds of thousands of subscribers and focuses on explaining complex topics like AI hardware, data centers, chips, and semiconductors.


Evidence confirming she's real includes:

• Professional profiles (LinkedIn under Anastasiia Nosova / anastasiintech, with posts about industry visits like imec and robotics interviews).
• Interviews (e.g., with eeNews Europe discussing AI silicon and the future of chips).
• Personal Q&A videos on her own channel where she shares her background (born in Moscow, education in Russia and Austria, career in chip design).
• Instagram (@anastasi.in.tech) with personal photos (e.g., at Stanford Business School).
• Her own website (anastasiintech.com) detailing her semiconductor startup and mission.
• Consistent coverage across sources like Wikitia, Grokipedia entries, and podcast listings (Deep in Tech / Anastasi In Tech).

Occasional online comments (e.g., on X/Twitter) questioning if she's "too perfect" or AI-generated seem to stem from her polished presentation style or high-production videos—common skepticism toward charismatic tech creators—but there's no credible evidence supporting that claim. In contrast, truly AI-generated "personalities" (like some virtual influencers) lack this level of verifiable real-world professional history, interviews, and physical appearances tied to events/locations.


She's a genuine human in the tech space, building credibility through deep industry knowledge and content.

They're out there for sure.

https://azeria-labs.com/about/

 

My point of view is, the problem is not change itself ... the problem is the abruptness of change. And we're living in times in which calling change "exponential" has become an understatement.

One must protect one's mind. Personally I rarely watch TV, try to avoid news, usually have classical music radio station on quietly, try to read stuff that's mentally stimulating (in my case, philosophy, physics, history, science fiction etc). I like a serene, restful atmosphere, I live in a quiet part of Arizona, so sitting in my yard is very peaceful most days (when its not 115F).

I like to live in an environment where I define the atmosphere, the noise level, the mental intrusions. Watching older movies, art and architecture documentaries is also restful, abstract worlds that stimulate free thoughts rather than the incessant hammering of commercialism.

Of course we can't ignore the outside world but we can limit how much we allow our personal world to be disrupted.

 

One must protect one's mind. Personally I rarely watch TV, try to avoid news, usually have classical music radio station on quietly, try to read stuff that's mentally stimulating (in my case, philosophy, physics, history, science fiction etc). I like a serene, restful atmosphere, I live in a quiet part of Arizona, so sitting in my yard is very peaceful most days (when its not 115F).

I like to live in an environment where I define the atmosphere, the noise level, the mental intrusions.

Of course we can't ignore the outside world but we can limit how much we allow our personal world to be disrupted.

Man, I envy you. I wish I had a quiet life too, in which I could concentrate on my work and research and be surrounded by nature. But in my case, it's an impossible thing. Too many responsibilities prevent me from living such a life.

 

I like to live in an environment where I define the atmosphere, the noise level, the mental intrusions.

And then there are us married folk, who live in our wives' environment.

 

I could care less if music is produced by AI, if you can listen to it and enjoy it that's all that counts. (for me, I listen to a lot of "electronic" music to begin with)

My beef with AI is all of the video productions that now crowd out the professional videos that I used to stream on YouTube, the number of errors in these videos is astonishing, and I get annoyed with having to check every video for errors especially when I'm just laying back chilling.

My favorite is WWII documentaries, so I usually start out watching something that I know is produced by professional historians, but soon enough the algorithms decide that I would rather be watching AI Slop.

Physics and Electronics also seem to be dominated by AI Slop these days, not that "professional" educators don't push a lot of nonsense as well.

Has anybody seen all of the fake Feynman dissertations? My god!

 

Moltbook

 

https://www.404media.co/pinterest-is-drowning-in-a-sea-of-ai-slop-and-auto-moderation/

Ready has been vocal and proud about the company’s commitment to forcing AI into every aspect of the user experience. “At Pinterest…we’re deploying AI to flip the script on social media, using it to more aggressively promote user well being rather than the alternative formula of triggering engagement by enragement,” Ready said in a January column at Fortune. “Social media platforms like Pinterest live and die by users’ willingness to share creative and original ideas.”