I've been thinking about this comment all weekend.

And, you know what? I've concluded you're right.

I realized that I spend all my free time thinking about physics, philosophy, politics, chemistry, biology, psychology, AI, QC, and technology in general. Even humor and meteorology (you'd be surprised how closely related they are). Canine and firearm training -- and the occasional five mile run -- somehow fits in there as well. And I like tinkering with my T-Bird.

And I don't have one single official recognized credential in any of these fields.

What the hell am I doing to myself?!

I've decided to take your advice.

I'm going to spend the rest of my life solving crossword and sudoku puzzles (maybe with Grok's help).

Unfortunately, I have no credentials in those either. Back to school, I guess.

My remarks were directed very specifically at the crank paper you chose to share here.

 

My remarks were directed very specifically at the crank paper you chose to share here.

But I am a crank: with respect to every activity I mentioned.

And I wear the label as a badge of honor.

Thank you.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatgpt-just-proved-another-50-year-old-math-conjecture/


ChatGPT just proved another 50-year-old math conjecture

What’s the secret to prompting an AI to solve math problems that have left humans stumped? Tell it to believe in itself

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/25/ai-mathematics-careers

 

​

 

Oh dear, we are going to have problems with all this AI crap:



and "specialty server" is not any category in NordVPN, not in windows desktop...yet AI insists that it is...

 

I was discussing a legal issue from a book I was reading, and it was clear that the AI knew something about it, but made obvious mistakes. I called it out, and it admitted all it knew was from the publishers blurb, and clips it found online. This only reinforces that it is nearing human-like intelligence as well as ignorance and the hiding thereof.

Maybe I am over-anthropomorphizing it.

 

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/aIfTxMLUP3Q

 

The $35 Billion AI Trading Loss Exposes The Real Risk Of Leverage

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosm...ading-loss-exposes-the-real-risk-of-leverage/

 

The $35 Billion AI Trading Loss Exposes The Real Risk Of Leverage

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosm...ading-loss-exposes-the-real-risk-of-leverage/

"...coupled with up to 400% leverage."

I think I found the reason. AI had nothing to do with it.

Human Stupidity, not Artificial Intelligence.

 

"...coupled with up to 400% leverage."

I think I found the reason. AI had nothing to do with it.

Human Stupidity, not Artificial Intelligence.

These models trains on human stupidity too, they can't tell the difference because it's so common.

 

These models trains on human stupidity too, they can't tell the difference because it's so common.

They asked the AI: "Leverage our clients' assets at 4:1".

The AI replied: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

So they did.

 

Designer Creates World’s Most Hideous Hawaiian Shirt to Hide From AI Surveillance Cameras


​

“AI systems are made of multiple layers and never learned what a human is — they learned what humans statistically look like in millions of training images,” the designer told Dezeen. “A ‘person,’ for the machine, is a bundle of visual statistics — and that is exactly its weakness.”

 

Designer Creates World’s Most Hideous Hawaiian Shirt to Hide From AI Surveillance Cameras
View attachment 370890
​

Not new, and completely overhyped. "Adversarial fashion" has been around for over a decade, and in fiction longer than that.

Assuming that image is even real, it's very likely that as soon as he moved, or the cloud cover changed, or a different camera was used, it would recognize him. And I am skeptical that the image is real to begin with. Think of where the camera has to be positioned in order to take it. Slightly above and behind two cameras, one of which is point right at him. So why have two cameras pointed at the same spot?

It's long been known that chaotic patterns can make it difficult for vision detection systems to reliably identify people (or other objects), but they only interfere with them erratically. So the person would basically flicker in and out as they move. Plus, to be more effective, they have to be tailored to the specific system being used, not AI in general.

 

"One of the fundamental skills for all humans in an AI world is accountability - just because the algorithm says it's the answer, it doesn't mean it actually is."

 

​