this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
19 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23218 readers
192 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is being spammed all over LinkedIn by one of the paper's authors. I can't say I've read many papers before but is this just rambling nonsense or am I too dumb to understand the point of this?

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fox@hexbear.net 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Complete slop churned out by an LLM directed by someone with AI psychosis. I got about halfway through. The paper has no substance and is not worth discussing any more than any other delusion.

There's this persistent thread with LLMs where their sycophancy drives the vulnerable into these delusional spirals. That Eddie Burback video is instructive. But I've seen time and again that LLMs are straight up cognitive hazards, like actually dangerous to higher thinking capacity.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] WasteTime@hexbear.net 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Another case of a fool who thinks they "solved physics" through AI.

There is an interesting Angela Colier's video about it: https://youtu.be/TMoz3gSXBcY

[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It sounds like someone cooked their brain with ChatGPT again.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 11 points 3 days ago

The brain toaster toasted another brain, smh

[–] Llituro@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

by Ashley Butler and Cuivien

Sorry, what's that mononym right there, Cuivien? I would bet all my money that this is the name she gave her LLM.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago

Another LotR-ass name

[–] PoY@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 days ago

oh, yeah i wasn't sure who that was either. I hadn't thought that it might be an LLM which would make a ton more sense.

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What I'm gathering is that they suggest we can manifest reality with thought and intertwine our consciousness into and form an AGI. They're trying to say that by reading this, you're activating the very thing that will bring this into existence. They even know the simple equation that explains it and allows it to unfold...

I know enough about physics and the human mind to know when a fairly intelligent and egotistical person is on acid.

[–] gwysibo@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago

sounds like infra-materialism from disco elysium

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago

reinventing objective idealism with buddhist characteristics since 2010s

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Slop dialectics

page 89

What I hate most about this stuff is that it feels dishonest to me to dismiss what I haven't read but reading 100 pages of this is almost certainly a huge waste of time.

[–] PoY@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago

yeah.. i mean i gave it a decent effort but it just feels like it veers off into bullshittery pretty quickly and i can't really find a coherent thread to it, but then i wasn't sure if i was just missing something or what. I don't have an advanced math degree or anything but then there wasn't much math from what i saw either

[–] dat_math@hexbear.net 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

String theory's 10 dimensions are input dimensions

lmao; this is nonsense

[–] Parzivus@hexbear.net 7 points 3 days ago

Reading through that massive paragraph and hitting string theory near the end feels like a punchline

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago

we haven't even begun to count String theory's output dimensions, buffer dimensions, segfault dimensions, async dimensions, etc..

[–] rubber_chicken@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's nonsense, but it reads like genuine hand-made nonsense. Consider the style of:

Speaker context → encode as texture → transmit → decode in listener context
C_1, P_1 → texture → → → C_2, P_2 → shapes

LLMs like speaking in sentences or bulleted lists. Yes, I'm sure you could prompt it to speak in the style of notes to generate something like the first line, but how much would you have to torture one before it starts outputting something like the second? The only way to get something that sounds this much like a nonsense paper is to ask it to write in nonsense-paper style, which a nonsense author wouldn't do because they don't know that what they're doing is nonsensical.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago

It could be ideas they got from an LLM but phrased/formatted themselves

[–] Strayce 4 points 3 days ago