Amid all the fanaticism that grew around zettelkasten method the past few years people have forgotten and de-emphasized the fact that for Luhmann it was not a "second brain" to be referenced on demand, it was explicitly a system to support writing. It is tailored to help researchers write papers. It shines if you actually need a system in which to keep notions coherent and organized so that ideas are clear and citations precise when you need them during the writing process. If that's not you, the overhead probably isn't worth it. Just keep a notebook.

The fact that any conscious human being has the time or energy to be "freaked out" about someone futzing around with their own devices is astounding to me.

So, in some ways, I also view LLMs as a pivotal and important wake up call. Companies were already taking the data and using it for a variety of other purposes—it was just way less evident to people when they weren't in direct competition with labor, since, under capital, labor is what we sell.

Either an entire new industry needs to form, or it's finally time to move beyond capitalism. Centralized capital ends up killing itself, because it effectively shuts down its own engine if it kills off consumers, who can only exist in the first place if the wage labor structure holds.

I can't wait until everyone stops falling for the "AGI ubermodel end of times" myth and we can actually have boring announcements that treat these things as what they actually are: tools. Tools for doing stuff, that's it.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe stuffing a computer with enough language and binary patterns is indeed enough to achieve AGI, but then, so what? There's no point in being right about this. Buying into this ridiculous marketing will get us "AGI" in the form of machines, but only because all the human beings have gotten so stupid as to make critical reasoning an impossibility.

If 1/N=18 are our requirements for statistical significance for world-altering claims, then yeah, I think we can replace all the researchers.

Outside of having a military, several tech companies are probably more powerful than nation states at this point, and I think some of them realize this. As long as a complete slip into barbarism is still not fully on the table, nations need the data that tech companies have more or less entirely captured and established a complete hegemony around at this point. They also rely directly on their products. I guess the EU is starting to wake up to how problematic this is.

Even though it cannot be reversed or eradicated (yet, let's hope) detection can allow individuals to adopt interventions that help either adjust their lives to better cope with its progression or help mitigate some of the detrimental behavioral consequences. In addition, if you have family to care for it may be impetus to get certain things in order for them before later stages of the disease, etc. It's horrible and bleak, but I could certainly see why one might want to know.

In the lucky case, it can also relieve anxiety. Even though false negatives may still be possible, receiving a negative detection might give people who have anxiety about certain symptoms relief, since they can rule out (rightly or wrongly) a pretty severe disease.

And that's precisely why the term "reasoning" was a problematic choice.

Most people, when they use the word "reason" mean something akin to logical deduction and they would call it a reasoning failure, being told, as they are, that "llms reason" rather than the more accurate picture you just painted of what actually happens (behavioral basins emerging from training dist.)

"What's 2 + 2" is a completely abstract question for mathematics that human beings are thoroughly trained mostly to associate with tests of mastery and intelligence.

The car wash question is not such a question. It is framed as a question regarding a goal oriented, practical behavior, and in this situation it would be bizarre for a person to ask you this (since a rational person having all the information in the prompt, knowing what cars are, which they own, and knowing what a car wash is, wouldn't ask anybody anything, they'd just drive their car to the car wash).

And as someone else noted there are in fact situations in which it actually can be reasonable to ask for more context on what you mean by "2 + 2". You're just pointing out that human beings use a variety of social mores when interpreting messages, which is precisely why the car wash question silly/a trick were a human being to ask you and not preceded the question with a statement like "we're going to take an examine to test your logical reasoning".

As with LLMs, interpretation is all about context. The people that find this question weird (reasonably) interpret it in a practical context, not in a "this is a logic puzzle context" because human beings wags cats far more often than they subject themselves to logic puzzles.

But that's precisely the problem with not backing it with actual measures of meaningful outcomes. The "use more" KPIs have no way of actually discerning whether or not it has increased productivity or if the immediate gains are worth possible new risks (outages).

You don't need to run cover for a csuite class that has become both itself myopic and incredibly transparent about what they really care about (cost cutting, removing dependencies on workers who might talk back, etc.)

It's part of the reason that I view much of this AI push as an effort to brute force lowering of expectations, followed by a lowering of wages, followed by a lowering of employment numbers, and ultimately the mass-scale industrialization of digital products, software included.