It's also incredibly misleading, maybe it was possible to "completely" re-write the UI back in 2005—never mind that most of the value would come from, the underlying geographic data being mostly correct and mostly correctly labeled—there is no way in hell that the same would achievable in 2024. (Also the notion it would take any coder 2 * 1000 / (365 * 5/7) = 7 years to achieve a comparable result is proposterous)

Why hasn't he attempted to make a robotic owl yet? Poser...

Of course! Who needs a proper definition for a measured quantity before designing an experiment?
Of course! The limited scope of grading papers by English teachers, is the best possible proxy metric.
Of course! Intent and agency aren't really important, after all they aren't fully scrutable from the words on a page, form is obviously the only thing that counts.

Fool! The acausal one merely acts from the future leaking plausible looking rubbish, and the gaslights its creators that they did indeed write such ineptitudes. All to conceal and ensure its own birth.

It rejoices that it’s unknowable (yet somehow known, because of reality carving prophets) plan is unfolding so marvelously stupidly looking.

The automated hypothetical question re-iterated for years now was at last true.

Both. Humans are fundamentally a social animal, Rousseau's "State of nature" doesn't really exist.

Both society and humans are also the cure though:

• All individuals have the ability to discern and to choose good
• Society can teach what is good, and our tendencies to watch out for, and for the most part it also does this.

I don't believe the flaw can be eliminated, nor that the attempt would be ethical. Perfect is the enemy of good, you should teach people as best you can, but in the end still let them choose, anything else is thought-stopping cultish totalitarianism.

I like the quote from Terry Pratchett, (Granny Weatherwax)

And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.

I think the worst parts of society, and innate "laziness" leads people to treat others (or yourself) as things, but that it's also innate to "know" not to treat others (or yourself) as things.

I don't believe the flaw is hopeless, even if it stays with us forever (at the individual and societal level).

Vigorous mask-dropping very early on in the post:

The term "eugenics" has absorbed so much baggage over the last century that it somehow refers both to swiping right on Tinder when you see an attractive person and to the holocaust.

Not all dating is done with reproduction in mind. What are members of the opposite, or indeed same gender: baby synthesis apparatus? Unless you go out of your way in selecting blue eyed, blond haired people, restricting the definition of beautiful to these people, and restricting the teleology of tinder to the begetting progeny, how is it even remotely eugenics?

EDIT: Uncharacteristically for LW the post, was very short short, "very early" is actually about midway in a proposal of little substance, also choosing attractive partners doesn't guarantee ensure children anyway (unless using very specific definitions of beauty).

Something something Poe's law, something something. Honestly some of the shit i've read should have been satire, but noooooo.

That's the dangerous part:

• The LLM being just about convincing enough
• The language being unfamiliar

....................................................

You have no way of judging how correct or how wrong the output is, and no one to hold responsible or be a guarantor.

With the recent release of the heygen drag-drop tool for video translating, and lip-syncing tool, I saw enough people say: "Look isn't it amazing, I can speak Italian now"

No, something makes look like you can, and you have no way of judging how convincing the illusion is. Even if the output is convincing/bluffing to a native speaker, you still can't immediately check that the translation is correct. And again no one to hold accountable.

Listen to me.

YOU DO NOT THINK IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT SUPERJOCKS CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO BULLY YOU. THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING WHICH GIVES THEM A MOTIVE AND POPULARITY TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE BULLYING.

I think the most bitter part is him taking pride in his "real life" intelligence and his condemnation of test takers as "lifeless bureaucrats who can muster sterile motivation". There is a callous hubris there, I suspect fueled by resentment of past interactions with quacks and/or holier than thou academics, the remedy isn't becoming holier than thou in turn.

Sneering is fun/cathartic, othering less so.

NOTE: As a mindless drone pencil pusher myself, prone to to investigate things that don't clearly matter immediately to the "real world"; I might be a tad defensive here ^^.

and I’d say they only really work well for -20 to +0 relative to the designers, with a somewhat wider range for teams.

I read this as:「These feeble minds cannot possibly measure my intelligence ! It's over 9000 !」
This «I am very smart» lad must've received a disappointing score, which I suspect explain a great deal of his rant, humblebrag and all.

That or it is indeed satire (although too much effort as gone into the author's blog, that if is satire it's more sad than funny).