21–30 of 103 posts
And doing so without a giant [SLOP WARNING] at the top is an asshole move, a decent person would never do so.
Kind of grim that this level of analysis is informing UK government policy. Repeatedly, the AI doesn't have the information or access needed through his hacky vibe-coded MCP, and instead of abandoning his flawed artificial test scenario (or fixing it — finding or building a better one) he gives it a name "The sensorium effect" and treats this as some brilliant insight. Both humans and AI struggle to make sound choice…
And of course is unaware of prior work in this area!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn
> I now work with governments around the world at the Tony Blair Institute, which means I spend a lot of time in rooms where people ask the same question: what can we actually trust these systems to do? Oh no - we're going to end up with the Starmerbot 3000. Now I've got the joke out of the way, there's at least four interesting lines of inquiry one could take with this blog post: - teaching the AI how to play Civili…
This is not a binary; it's the same people on the same side.
Another article about how it's dangerous to trust AI, written by AI. I don't understand how people don't realise how much this undermines the message.
It didn’t undermine it for me.
[flagged]
Even with his context-tracking mechanism, the gameplay failures sound like running out of context in the late game, especially the frequent failures of the "check for opponent win conditions every 20 moves." Wondering how much info about the game win state gets captured in the game digests, and how much he could improve the gameplay even with the MCP limitations by focusing there.
> I now work with governments around the world at the Tony Blair Institute, which means I spend a lot of time in rooms where people ask the same question: what can we actually trust these systems to do? Oh no - we're going to end up with the Starmerbot 3000. Now I've got the joke out of the way, there's at least four interesting lines of inquiry one could take with this blog post: - teaching the AI how to play Civili…
> "technocratic wonk" vs "blood and soil" This is not a binary; it's the same people on the same side.
That doesn't mean that rational policy planning has never been a thing. The EU while imperfect and frustrating is explicitly orientated towards technocratic consensus rather than the mid-20th-century Europe of nationalist mass murder. Only a tiny number of people think that Von der Leyen and Hitler are equivalent.
(or rather, if you think technocrats and blood-and-soil are the same side, what do you call the "other" side?)