It seems insane to try to connect a twenty year shift in one global variable to one causal factor. This approach is why the social sciences continue to struggle to create understanding. It is all they can afford to do, though.

That said, 3) I think possibly best explains both: the increase in average number of friends due to influencer dynamics skewing the distribution, and the increase in polarization due to the tactics in social media.

However there seems to be no chance it is a durable or reproducible link, as it depends on the novelty of polarization techniques which wear over time and become known and integrated in education, reducing their effectiveness

hallucination is just built in, what am I missing?

That LLMs have some basic metaknowledge and metacognitive skills that they can use to reduce the hallucination rate.

Which is what humans do too - it's not magic. Humans just get more metacognitive juice for free. Resulting in a hallucination rate significantly lower than that of LLMs, but significantly higher than zero.

Now, having the skills you need to avoid hallucinations is good, even if they're weak and basic skills. But is an LLM willing to actually put them to use?

OpenAI cooked o3 with reckless RL using hallucination-unaware reward calculation - which punished reluctance to answer and rewarded overconfident guesses. And their benchmark suite didn't catch it, because the benchmarks were hallucination-unaware too.

Also on the edge, but it appears they are relying on the search-augmented identification of conflicts in the generated statement, which is an easier task than constructing an answer to the question. It also encourages abstention because there are no conflicts in “I don’t know” (so “mitigating hallucinations” and “answering more questions correctly” are not necessarily the same thing)

Leopards ate my face is only negative, and has been more political, typically someone voting to weaponize the government against their peer-level enemies but hypocritically, only to later realize they are not a party to the benefits, only the consequences.

It is really about a perceptual flaw in pre-fascist democratic behavior: people believing themselves to be a part of the protected class because they voted for it.

It seems to apply here because someone profiting from the creation of tools used on others by people with money/power has them used on him by the government.

tldr; it is a subset of you reap what you sow, with more specificity and punch

You know what? Thank you for explaining that!

It also weeds you out if you reproduce but your children choose not to (and/or don’t get chosen), which adds an interesting dimension.

Math is models, not reality

This is just emergence, though? How is emergence related to completeness?

This happens over and over with the relatively new popularization of a theory: the theory is proposed to be the solution to every missing thing in the same rough conceptual vector.

It takes a lot more than just pointing in the general direction of complexity to propose the creation of a complete system, something which with present systems of understanding appears to be impossible.

> How is emergence related to completeness?

I didn't make that argument. I think, the original conclusion above isn't reasonable. However, "a concert" isn't "just" a bigger system either, which is my point.

It just depends on your definition of system, doesn’t it?

Turtles all the way down?

Energies, yes, but the concept of energy quanta is inverted to e.g. time and length in that we have a maximum, not a minimum, where our understanding/models are limited, right?

Timing is a difficult variable.