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?
You must log in or # to comment.
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.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
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
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
It sounds like someone cooked their brain with ChatGPT again.
The brain toaster toasted another brain, smh
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.
sounds like infra-materialism from disco elysium
reinventing objective idealism with buddhist characteristics since 2010s
String theory’s 10 dimensions are input dimensions
lmao; this is nonsense
Reading through that massive paragraph and hitting string theory near the end feels like a punchline
we haven’t even begun to count String theory’s output dimensions, buffer dimensions, segfault dimensions, async dimensions, etc…
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.
Another LotR-ass name
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.
Slop dialectics
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.
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
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 → shapesLLMs 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.
It could be ideas they got from an LLM but phrased/formatted themselves
