[bomewish]

Doh. I went in expecting a really cool thesis — because the idea seems somehow intuitive, or at least really intriguing. But I have no clue what I read. Just totally odd and unconvincing. Greenland? Dialectal substrate? The idea is still super intriguing to me though!

[chromacity]

Well, at least you know it's not AI-written because it's delightfully weird and evidently about some pet theory of the author. This day and age, that's something to unironically celebrate.

[ulf-77723]

I love this! Especially the part about greenland. For quite some time the dashes were a good indicator of a text was written by AI - but now the best option is to write more human like by doing it a little less polished but weird - at least the message is being transported

[ACCount37]

A lot of (allegedly human) cranks now bounce their wacky ideas off a "you're completely right" LLM.

AI psychosis has been going through armchair philosophers, physicists and political theorists the way crack was going through the low income neighborhoods back in the 80s.

[asdfman123]

While I understand what the paper is saying I'm not sure if what I read was written by someone who is smarter than me and naturally goes higher up the abstraction tree, or just wants to write really smart things.

Either way though I think there's a much simpler way to express what she's trying to say. Offloading thinking to AI is bad because it's less flexible and doesn't easily update its reasoning with new information.

[layer8]

It’s a blog post, not a paper.

[GeoAtreides]

>I have no clue what I read. Just totally odd and unconvincing.

How can it be unconvincing if you didn't understand the argument presented in the post?