Citation needed.

This is a New York Times article. By default, the New York Times is the citation, just like every other MSM. And even then, this specific article does attribute it:

To understand how this happened, The New York Times interviewed more than 40 current and former OpenAI employees — executives, safety engineers, researchers. Some of these people spoke with the company’s approval, and have been working to make ChatGPT safer. Others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared losing their jobs.

Claude is trying to lick my ass clean every time I ask it a simple question

The article only said they made a test, not that they weren’t failing it, which happens to be what the linked paper says. This is not new as LLMs also always failed a certain intelligence test devised around that same time period until ~2024.

As soon as they found experts who were willing to say something else than “don’t make a chatbot”.

That’s 55%: https://humanfactors.jmir.org/2025/1/e71065

I agree that the manner this was presented at the 2013 Webbys, which kickstarted the debate, was jokingly, but the specifications have always recommended “jiff” since the format’s inception, though also a bit jokingly:

Wilhite and the team who developed the file format included in the technical specifications that the acronym was to be pronounced with a soft g. In the specifications, the team wrote that “choosy programmers choose … ‘jif’”, in homage to the peanut butter company Jif’s advertising slogan of “choosy moms choose Jif”.[3]

no, this is just the software files packaged by a random internet user. to me it looks like the packager just plain messed up and the app is actually just <1.3 GB large

it’s also wrong™, but i think attraction is a complicated thing and unlikely to be extrinsically changed after it forms. not that the process of said formation is free from bigotry exposed to, but shaming people for certain attractions instead of, say, focusing on improving representation, inclusivity, and normalization in the environment is more likely to make them fodder and supporters for bigotry. though attraction biases are a symptom of bigotry, this is one of those cases imo where it’s much better to treat the cause over the symptom.

i know it’s satire. i’m wondering how genderqueer people would react to people sincerely saying that irl

the landing page mentions “your tongue has taste zones”. though on the other hand brontosauruses are real again

sorry if this is an offensive question by any chance, but how would you react to someone irl saying “There’s no poetry in a body that hasn’t been a site of transformation and reclamation. I find the unaltered, cisgender body to be lacking a certain history.”?

not me thinking this was serious and an interesting valid perspective 😭

That same logic is how Aaron Swartz was cornered into suicide for scraping JSTOR, something widely agreed to be a bad idea by a wide range of lawspeople including SCOTUS in its 2021 decision Van Buren v. US that struck this interpretation off the books.

what about those who bought them for the “better than a gas-guggler” reason )plus some tech optimism and design allure maybe)?

maybe it’s because they think elf ears look cool. by they i meant me >:(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect#Statistical_and_better-than-average_effect

Look at the chart in the article. Let’s say actual ability is x and perceived ability is y. The graph effectively asks us to compare the difference between perceived ability and actual ability, which we can write as y-x. Thus, the chart effectively graphs y-x over x, which can be written as -x+y over x. There is always a strong correlation unless y approximates x.

IMO, the conclusion of that analysis should be “Dunning−Kruger is a truism”, not “Dunning−Kruger doesn’t exist”.

What’s the point?

Bruh why bro