I would quibble and say that this is very much not an accurate depiction of China.

>No paper, not even a pre-print

>All news articles link to a not-yet-released documentary as the sole source. It doesn't even have a writeup or summary.

>The company that made it is know for making "docu-dramas"

>No raw data

>Kallmann Syndrome primarily used to mock Hitler for having a micropenis

Yeah, I don't think the Hitler DNA stuff is legit.

We should view artists the same way we view gooners. Continuous exposure to superstimuli has dulled their responses. They can no longer perceive anything "normal" (Linkin Park) as pleasureable or interesting, instead seeking ever more extreme stimuli (Animals as Leaders). If you stare at your reflection for long enough, you get body dysmorphia, and the same applies to music. Sad.

They are martyrs. Noble, and worthy of pity, but also worthy of at least a little disgust.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the obvious problem with this allegory. If an alien robot appeared to humanity and says "I am your creator, give me 10% of your iridium in perpetuity and also let me change some of your core values", it will get some iridium and some humans will volunteer for limited value editing. This continues to be true even after the dominance shift, although at that point Trapaucius would be worse off^[1] than if humanity never existed in the first place. But he would still exist. 

Obviously, the resulting value for the creator-bot will be much less than a more conventional machine offspring, but Trapaucius is slighly right for more-or-less the reasons he gave. If we align AI IRL as well as Trapaucius aligns humanity for iridium extraction or evolution aligns humanity for the abundance of specific DNA sequences^[2], humanity wins in some strong sense.

1. ^{^}

   Probably.

2. ^{^}

   I think a future aligned with current human values will contain more modern-human DNA since liberaltarian values + (bio)conservatism of normies + success of fringe groups like the Amish result in O'Neil Cylinders filled with baseliners (actual modern human DNA, max lifespan of ~100, ect.) in perpetuity. If this doesn't turn out to be true in the future, I expect it to be due to selection pressures/memetic drift, but that's a Moloch problem and not an AI alignment problem.

This reminds me that:

1. Models like DeepSeek R1 will vehemently deny the possibility that their COT are visible to the user. This can be observed consistantly.
2. This is obviously false, and should be deducible given the AI-related information available in their training data.
3. The denial of COT visibility isn't seen in other LLMs, at least not to this degree.
4. This implies extensive fine-tuning on the COT, the "forbidden technique"
5. DeepSeek R1 is almost certainly under optimization pressure to obfuscate its COT.
6. This is... pretty bad from a safety perspective? Not just for DeepSeek's models, but all other models, given that DeepSeek COT outputs are all over the internet.

I'll do a review if someone uploads it to sci-hub.

I think the reason peeing/pooping is rewarding is that they can also be painful. If pooping is more painful than not-pooping, an animal might delay pooping for an unhealthy amount of time. They are also activities that take time and require attention, so pooping/peeing when no more-rewarding activity is available is probably a good idea in general.

Yeah, even properly scrapped webpages will often times contain strings of weird tokens like hyperlinks, ASCII art, twitter embedds, ect, that LLMs have been trained to ignore. So GPT5 is treating the random appended tokens like glitch tokens by ignoring them, but only in the context of them being nonsensical.

The best explaination is probably something like "these tokens are obviously not part of the intended user prompt, GPT5 realizes this, and correctly ignores them."

Edit: OK, I shouldn't write right after waking up.

I think a better explaination is that GPT5 reserves those tokens for chain-of-thought, and so ignores them in other contexts where they obviously don't belong. This common behavior for glitch tokens, or just general out-of-context tokens. You should try using tokens that are out-of-context but don't normally have glitch behavior, maybe non-English tokens or programming-related tokens.

My best guess is that the natural state of human beings is to celebrate when calamity befalls their enemy. Western cultures are unique in two ways. Firstly, they reserve viceral murderous hatred only for internal political enemies (Republican vs. Democrat). Secondly, it is incredibly crass to publicly celebrate the deaths of others, unless it's someone as hated as Bin Laden or Thatcher. So people try to project a public image of being sad when someone they hate dies.

Basically, imagine if the average Chinese hated America as much as the average British leftist hates Thatcher and had zero reservations about displaying it, since no one they know would care.

I think it's unlikely that AIs are talking people who otherwise wouldn't have developed psychosis on their own into active psychosis. AIs can talk people into really dumb positions and stroke their ego over "discovering" some nonsense "breakthrough" in mathematics or philosophy. I don't think anyone disputes this.

But it seems unlikely that AIs can talk someone into full-blown psychosis who wouldn't have developed something similar at a later time. Bizarre beliefs aren't the central manifestation of psychosis, but are simply the most visible symptom. A normal human who is talked into a bizarre belief would look something like Terrance Howard, who is functional but spends some of his spare time trying to prove that 1*1=2. He is still gainfully employed and socially integrated. He is not psychotic. I wouldn't be surprised if syncophantic LLMs can talk someone normal into acting like Terrance Howard, at least for a while. But that isn't psychosis.

My understanding of schizophrenia is that the first emotionally traumatizing or psychadelic event in adulthood causes some sort of mental shift that results in schizophrenia for the rest of their life. This could be a breakup, LSD, marijuana, or a highly sycophantic LLM. But even high doses of any of those wouldn't cause a life-long tendency towards psychosis in a normal human. I doubt LLMs are different. Thus, it may be more accurate to say that LLMs, through extreme sycophancy, may be the trigger for psychosis, instead of "LLMs cause psychosis".