I think what we do have evidence for is that you didn't read the paper, but I did, because it was interesting. From the paper:

Godel does no such thing. The incompleteness theorem says that some things can't be proven, and aren't computable, but every example of that *includes humans*. It's not a case that you can't build a computer and program in an axiomatic system that is consistent and can prove every statement with godel numbers, but that a human can prove a statement in that system that that computer can't prove. The human can't either. It's a statement about the limits of axiomatic mathematical systems.

There's no evidence anything in human thought falls under the realm of uncomputability. In fact, given that the brain is made up of neurons that are guaranteed to fire or not fire given specific conditions, electrical and chemical, there's plenty of evidence that it *must* be computable and algorithmic.

That is a terrible system, I'm surprised they do it that way. Banks are usually better about that. The only times I got a call from my bank that required me to prove who I was, it was either a returned call, and they mentioned the subject and that I had called, before they started verifying my identity, so I knew it was legit. Or the fraud alert people, and they could easily verify that they were who they said they were, because they asked about specific purchase attempts with the amount and location before they tried to verify my identity.

I did get one *actual* phishing call decades ago that made me absolutely crack up. The person on the other line said they were from "the bank." They didn't say which bank, just "the bank." Usually I immediately hang up on phishing, but that one made me want to engage a bit: I asked "which bank" and he answered, "your bank." At that point I just burst out laughing and the gig was up, so I hung up.

I had an instance of a work e-mail years ago, that was sent from a third-party contractor, that had so many red flags for very obvious phishing (including coming from outside the organization, wtf).

Where I work, we have a place to forward phishing emails so that IT can review it. I forwarded it there, and apparently so many other people did that a follow-up email had to be sent out that said, "we thank everyone for pointing out this e-mail as phishing, but we can confirm it's actually legit."

I think they learned the lesson from that, because it has not happened since that we got such a terrible email. I think my point is that overtraining may not work, but having a place to report phishing is a great idea. It only takes one person to report it, and then the IT department sends out a massive e-mail to warn everyone else about it, so it doesn't rely on them recognizing it (and anyone that already fell victim to it can report that they have, so action can be taken to minimize the damage). And in cases like you and I experienced, they can also do the opposite and confirm that it's real.

I agree, but go the other route for the comparison to humans and thought: people need to stop thinking that what we do when we "think" isn't algorithmic. Of course it is. We're not that special.

The models are trained on the same data, and they create their output based on the connections they made with all the previous data. When we ask it to generate "random" numbers, they're not any more random than when a human is asked to generate a random list of numbers. It's not purposefully encoding the information in the numbers because transmitting its love for owls is important to it, but the favorite animal information tokens are part of the seed made when it's generating those numbers.

Invariably, the second LLM that has been trained on the same data as the first will have the same data connections to those numbers. It's similar to how, when I was dating, I was filtering out anyone that added the information in the app that they had not been vaccinated for COVID. There's a *lot* of information associated with the type of person who was not only not vaccinated, but felt that they needed to state it. The information isn't contained in that assertion alone, but combined with the information already in my brain, it tells me a lot about their belief structure in things completely unrelated to vaccines and COVID. The LLM is doing that.

"may have a different interior structure or evolutionary history compared to the other giant planets."

I'm pretty sure we already expect that:
- axial tilt of about 98 degrees
- magnetic axis tilted 60 degrees from rotational axis
- magnetic axis offset from its center
- axial spin is retrograde ... all of which, to me, suggest a collision with a sizeable body OR capture but the orbital dynamics of that would seem unlikely.

... My company has an elaborate phishing training regime, but at the same time:

- sends out corporate news and hr internal things with "click this" shortened links

- connects essential/critical functions through outsourced partners (like fucking SharePoint) that demands you use your CORPORATE UBER SECRET ID AND PASSWORD on some password popup to a completely different domain

Even if you're conscientious and cautious, these corporate practices train you to obediently do things that are objectively unsafe.

Maybe I'm just unaware, but I'm astonished that the subscription seat heaters weren't instantly hacked just on principle.

Being compensated for it means it wonâ(TM)t get wasted and will always have a fair valuation.

Compensation is as cooperative as it comes because nobody can hoard it.

I was wondering about that.....so the ADHD meds are basically low dose speed, right?

Runs on everything from VMS clusters to Alpine Linux. Has libraries for *everything*. Can be structured and enterprise, or quick-hack to fix a devops issue. Perl is beautiful and timeless.

Social media already gives me too much access to too many people's inner monologues that should have been kept "inner", thanks.

Weirdly written summary.

Let's be clear: the summary repeatedly talks about the drugs being the thing that's giving all these beneficial results.

It's the suppression of ADHD that is giving these results -the drugs are apparently successful in their job.

This has happened many times over the decades. Osmosis (mostly!) results in the better changes trickling back into mainstream linux distributions.

My least/most favorite example of this is Stormix Linux.

It was based on Debian, back in 1999. It was geared towards a simplified desktop experience and introduced a lot of new things, at the time: graphical installer that detected hardware (and had a broad set of hardware support not found elsewhere); GUI apt manager; and a number of other really clean add ons that made the desktop more usable. It was head and shoulders above all other options at the time.

When Stormix the company failed, and the distro died, the resulting community/developer effort became the Progeny Debian distribution for a short while, and a Progeny package repository. I used that for years.

Arguably, if it wasn't for Stormix, Ubuntu wouldn't have become what it is today, as those efforts were later channeled into Ubuntu.

As with most things in life, it's 2 steps forward and one step back...