The lesser known type of Uncanny Valley... where instead of being super unsettling it's just very fucking irritating lol

"You're right to ask, boss. When I said I was using AI to get work done, I was doing neither and just simulating using AI in my mind as I napped under my desk."

Honestly, this is a win-win. I can just lie and say the AI is working on it, and work my second job in the meantime. Boss gets to tell the execs we're using AI and I get twice as much money.

We can unite with the AI against the CEOs

No they want AI instead of workers. AI doesn’t need health insurance or PTO.

Right? This is exactly what an LLM does. It's parsed a large amount of text that has a reply very similar to this one when the 'scenario' matches what our poster friend has created/said. So it's going to spit out a reply very similar to all the ones that you've already heard/seen from real humans.

First we have to prove humans are sentient. My hypothesis is that it's a Spectrum. Everything is a Spectrum.

I like when it insists I'm using escape characters in my text when I absolutely am not and I have to convince a machine I didn't type a certain string of characters because on its end those are absolutely the characters it recieved.

The other day I argued with a bot for 10 minutes that I used a right caret and not the html escape sequence that results in a right caret. Then I realized I was arguing with a bot, went outside for a bit, and finished my project without the slot machine.

Some models hide their reasoning all together, but at the end spit out a summary of their reasoning. Its useless.

Gemini gets constantly glazed by the AI enthusiasts community because it often passes benchmarks very well when it is literally one of the worst ones to use.

I'd argue that Gemini is actually really good at summarizing a Google search, filtering the trash from it, and convincing people not to click the actual links that is how Google makes money.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. By "the commenter" do you mean the human or the AI in the screenshot?

Also,

For instance, many SoTA models are trained using reinforcement learning, so it’s plausible that its learned that spamming meaningless tokens can delay negative reward

What's a "negative reward"? You mean a penalty? First of all, I don't believe this makes sense either way because if the model was producing garbage tokens, it would be obvious and caught during training.

But even if it wasn't, and it did in fact generate a bunch of garbage that didn't print out in the Claude UI, and the explanation of "simulated progress" was the AI model coming up with a plausible explanation for the garbage tokens, it still does not make it sentient (or even close).

To be fair I think that's a very human thing, if you ask a large language model to read something and it can demonstrate applied Knowledge from the text you've submitted in a fraction of a second you'll be like what the fuck that took not enough time.