I have seen an American book, published in the 1960s, whose title included "An Historical Survey".

For me, on this one, if there's an "an", it pushes me to not pronounce the "h" in the next word, even though I consider it silly to pronounce "historical" that way.

> Sometimes I can find it if I keep revising, but staring at a sentence too long can entangle you in a particular linguistic frame that can be hard to escape.

This expresses quite well an experience that I have sometimes had. Your first words can trap you in a box that you know isn't right, but you can't figure out how to escape.

There's a difference between me getting AI to write something I want to read, and getting it to write something you want to read. The difference is that I know me, but I don't know you.

The other difference is that, if I get AI to write something for me, I expect something AI-written. If I am writing something for you, you expect something that I wrote, not something that AI wrote.

Moreover, when you wrote it yourself, you are intellectually responsible, you can defend it, while if the LLM wrote it for you, nobody is really responsible: The LLM didn't write it "out of its own motivation", it was merely extrapolating your prompt; and you only provided the prompt, not the extrapolation.

So the intellectual responsibility is diluted to a substantial degree: The text is not the opinion of anyone who can be expected to honestly defend it. It's bullshit in the technical sense.

On what grounds? The US didn't just take Greenland?

That what Trump got, was basically what could been negotiated by just asking nicely years ago. So lot of drama for nothing

They have tried 'asking nicely' but Denmark had been playing the independence card, claiming any deal would have to involve Greenlandic consent.

Last year's US-Denmark military basing agreement excluded Greenland for this 'reason'.

But both sides knew this was a deflection as Denmark has military and foreign relations responsibility for its "non-colony".

The US got fed up, pushed harder and apparently got what they wanted.

That part didn't change. The deal will only be in force once it has been formally ratified by the US, Denmark, and Greenland.

The constitutional status of Greenland's autonomy is somewhat unclear. If Danish parliament had the will, it's plausible that it could force a deal on Greenland by changing the relevant laws. But it's also likely that overcoming all the legal and constitutional obstacles would take years. Changing the constitution might actually be faster, but even that would involve general elections and a referendum.

Usually when someone threatens you they should get less, if anything.

"The near field is not described by Maxwell's equations"? Yeah, I want to see the experimental proof of that claim...

Russia earned their paranoia the hard way - Napoleon and Hitler. They remember an invader that reached Moscow, took it, and held it for weeks, then burned it on the way out. They remember another invader that came within 35 miles of Moscow. That invasion started from the middle of Poland; they don't want to face one that starts from the eastern edge of Ukraine.

Of course, this is still paranoia, no matter how honestly they come by it. NATO is not Hitler, nor is it Napoleon. NATO is not going to launch an unprovoked invasion of Russia, no matter what happened in the previous two centuries.

But when Ukraine talks about joining NATO, Russia feels the gun pointed at it. There is no gun, but Russia feels it.

Yes, I understand how their delusions work, though I'm sure it's not universal - it's obvious that for most of higher ups the real reason is that they feel sad they can no longer control their neighbours. What's interesting is that they don't see it the other way - in XX and XXI century it was actually russia that kept attacking their neighbours, so demilitarization when you are neighbouring russia is basically death sentence.

I'm not sure that it's wanting to control their neighbors. I think it's fear of their own populace. A functional, prosperous democracy next door, with people of the same ethnic and cultural background, might give Russians the idea that they can govern themselves, without needing a strongman. Putin is terrified of them thinking that. He's afraid of his own color revolution.

"That particular voice".

Yeah. Different authors should have different voices. Having them all sound the same is like having all your food taste the same. It makes you want to throw up after a while.

I think you missed the point, "That particular voice" - is the claude vomit that I have to consume everyday and it makes me shudder every time I see it.

No, I don't think I did.

That voice grates on you. It grates on all of us. But it would grate on us less if we didn't hear it all the time - if it wasn't half of the words coming at us.

Dibes said, "I am so exhausted of reading that particular voice that I made it half way through this article before I just couldn't do it anymore." I think what I said is exactly to his point.

Non-trivial infinite loops are very much not an "idiot" thing on embedded systems. "Run until power off" or "run until the warhead detonates" are perfectly normal things to do in that world.

How often should we allow human provided targets to go unverified by a human before killing every innocent student inside the target?

That is, the question of whether targets should be verified is orthogonal to the question of whether humans or AIs supply targeting data with fewer errors.

Not often, and when it does happen, those that commit criminal negligence should be served justice.

It shouldn’t be hard to gather intelligence that shows “kids go to school here.”

Then again, bad American intelligence dragged them into a very expensive war in Iraq on false grounds and we’re still trying to get justice served 23 years later.

But with people, we learn some "tells". We learn (imperfectly) to tell when they're lying or untrustworthy.

We don't have tells for when AIs are lying to us, or when they're making stuff up.