Ah yes, let's price the world out of the real estate market and then use insanely powerful AI models to systematically mock the living conditions of the poors.
Let's gather authors of 15 different world languages together in a room and see if they can collaboratively write a short story. Surely their inability to do so will prove their inadequacy in their native language. /s
Simplicity brings us closer to truth — Occam's razor has underpinned the development of our species for centuries. It's enterprise, empire, and capital that feed off of complexity.
We're entering a period of human history where engineers and businesspeople drive academic discourse, rather than scientists or philosophers. The result is intellectual chicken scratch like this article.
Not surprised. This summer I had a conversation with a senior staffer at OpenAI who had smoke coming from his ears due to Sam's incompetence. Contrary to his public image, he doesn't have the skillset of a CEO. He was a failed founder who was hired to head YC because he's smart and likeable. He was in a similar role at AI - a brainy media mouthpiece. Real work being done by senior staff. OpenAI's massive scale-up requires a new leadership style.
Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but the authors seem preoccupied with airing their own frustration with the views of Deepak Chopra. Using such an author as a data source is distracting because he writes about a sort of spiritual thinking that - based on the tone of the article - the authors presumably do not practice themselves.
I would be interested to expand the author's definition of bullshit to account for instances where the 'bullshitee' has insufficient knowledge about a topic. In the same way a true statement about theoretical physics would be indistinguishable from bullshit to anyone not trained in the subject.
I found this paper close to touching on a method for understanding truthiness in generated text, but falling short into comedy.