God I looked into the article this is meant to illustrate, and I have feelings. The idea this mysterious, evocative short story is something to be solved, and that he's somehow cracked the code. And it must be precisely about Dracula. Don't ask yourself why the name comes from Proust, and why the style and themes are so heavily proustian. Proust is not genre literature, it isn't in communication with the literature of ideas, which means it is of no value. Gene Wolfe is genre literature, so the story must be about vampires, and nothing else. Any literary depth is mere distraction, a ruse meant to mislead you and have you fail the test. Can't wait for the rationalist Pale Fire remake!!!

groks gunna make u fuck

These fake people all have extremely 2025 voices

A small sidenote on a dynamic relevant to how I am thinking about policing in these cases:

A classical example of microeconomics-informed reasoning about criminal justice is the following snippet of logic.

If someone can gain in-expectation X dollars by committing some crime (which has negative externalities of Y>X dollars), with a probability p of getting caught, then in order to successfully prevent people from committing the crime you need to make the cost of receiving the punishment (Z) be greater than X/p, i.e. X<p∗Z.

Or in less mathy terms, the more likely it is that someone can get away with committing a crime, the harsher the punishment needs to be for that crime.

In this case, a core component of the pattern of plausible-deniable aggression that I think is present in much of Said's writing is that it is very hard to catch someone doing it, and even harder to prosecute it successfully in the eyes of a skeptical audience. As such, in order to maintain a functional incentive landscape the punishment for being caught in passive or ambiguous aggression needs to be substantially larger than for e.g. direct aggression, as even though being straightforwardly aggressive has in some sense worse effects on culture and norms (though also less bad effects in some other ways), the probability of catching someone in ambiguous aggression is much lower.

Fucking hell, that is one of the stupidest most dangerous things I've ever heard. Guy solves crime by making the harshness of punishment proportional to the difficulty of passing judgement. What could go wrong?

Jesus christ, just ban the guy! Don't write a million words about how much he gets under your skin! Rude!!!!

So they're saying their present product can't do much of anything

Yeah I couldn't find the strength to even get to the naughty stuff, I gave up after one or two chapters. And I've read through all of HPMOR. 😐

"The left gets a new publication"

it's right wing

it's a substack

Everyone can also agree that the direct jump from GPT-4o and o3 to GPT-5 was not of similar size to the jump from GPT-3 to GPT-4

Sure babe, you keep telling yourself that.

My goodness that's a lot of words for completely missing the point that policy shouldn't be informed by religious beliefs.

God, poor Zack doesn't know how to do anything but publish instances of himself getting owned

From Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance (linked in the article):

First, although GPT-4’s UBE score nears the 90th percentile when examining approximate conversions from February administrations of the Illinois Bar Exam, these estimates are heavily skewed towards repeat test-takers who failed the July administration and score significantly lower than the general test-taking population.

Ohhh, that is sneaky!