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."

 

​

 

Your ChatGPT conversations could end up in court, and they're not protected


​

Chatbot conversations lack the legal privilege covering communications with lawyers, doctors, and therapists

 

Your ChatGPT conversations could end up in court, and they're not protected
View attachment 370923
​

"Chatbot conversations lack the legal privilege covering communications with lawyers, doctors, and therapists."

So, they are like girlfriends, then.

 

La Mesa bookstore rejects AI orders to save rare books

 

I am hesitant to post this here: I am simply unwilling to entertain the ridicule of what I do for self-entertainment (there's no accounting for taste, as they say). But it is pertinent to the direction this thread has taken. In advance, this is not the place to discuss or debate my work, and I will not partake in such a debate.

Last November, I initiated a personal academic exercise with Grok: can an LLM/Human team participate in an actual scientific investigation and produce logical, consistent, and evidence supported scientific results, including sharp, falsifiable predictions? Grok and I devised a theory that I then called EDH (Electromagnetic Debt Hypothesis). I made a thread here to continue my investigation publicly that, evidently, angered a great many folk, and the thread was summarily deleted. This is not a complaint: I understand.

Subsequently, me and a few AAC members went into hiding to continue pursuing the exercise via PMs. Hundreds of (extremely entertaining) hours and thousands of (unsearchable!) posts across multiple threads ultimately produced a logical, self-consistent, and plausible explanation of everything. "Everything" meaning that peer-reviewed scientific observations -- up to and including recent observations and discoveries -- have an explanation under the theory, without additional inputs.

One thing we learned early on is that a single EM field cannot explain everything. This theory is based on a more fundamental Substrate Field from which all reality arises. Thus, SDH, the Substrate Debt Hypothesis.

The original Grok-assisted theory evolved from classical principles: mainly Einstein's Field Equations and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and subsequent classical explanations for quantum observations.

Recently, I started working with the new version Google AI, and it independently arrived at essentially the same theory but with Quantum Mechanics as the starting point.

The attached file is not the authoritative version of SDH, but is a highly condensed, abbreviated, and incomplete summary of the theory as derived by Google AI. There are differences between the two models, but they are mostly semantic or linguistic: Google sometimes developed different terms to describe the same phenomena.

This has been an entertaining and educational venture. The investigation helped me to realize and understand the capabilities and limitations of modern LLMs, and also exposed the dramatic improvement in reasoning ability over just the past 9 months. I also had a post-doc crash course in real, theoretical, modern day physics -- that alone was worth the price of admission. I could have an intelligent conversation today with Roger Penrose -- him being willing -- and I probably wouldn't even bore him.

Is SDH the fundamental ToE? Likely not. As @nsaspook says, it's most likely a highly coherent, internally self-consistent, impeccably logical massive hallucination of multiple AIs.

In fact, our (me and the other participants, including the AIs) core mission has always been and continues to be: break the model.

We haven't been successful.

As a postscript: the concepts and premises, even the guiding philosophy, were not invented by the AIs. They were ours -- derived from human intelligence, creativity, and experience. The AI became simply a sounding board upon which to test and refine the theory. I see AI now as a mirror reflecting and refining my own thoughts.

@nsaspook, I know you hate AI slop. Don't read the attachment, and don't complain. Your objections are assumed and registered in advance.

Edit: typo in step 2, should be 1,000,000,001.

Well, now. I feel like I'm in the vanguard!