Jack

nobody is safe from the terrible takes.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

Fable be like "I estimate this task is 2 days of work" and then completes it in 20 minutes.

Is this a feature that devs rlhf'd into existence?

[Jack @JackRabuck]

On the bright side we can pick a better victory song now!

[Jack @JackRabuck]

What the MLS should actually do is make some change so that a few more goals are scored per game -- maybe make the nets slightly bigger. I imagine an extra foot of height and width would do it.

We don't have any records anyone cares about. We already get great players when they are about to retire. We'll get even more.

All of the games everyone has loved at the world cup have been 5 goals+.

If you are a top-tier player looking to ride out into the sunset wouldn't you love to get a few hat tricks in your mid 30s?

The superior game will attract more of the best athletes, and with more top tier talent to learn from, our league will grow the best young players.

The MLS will get better viewership because it will be a better product, and other leagues will have to follow our lead or become second or third tier.

Voila

[Nate Silver @NateSilver538]

Per Transfermarkt valuations MLS is basically the equivalent of the domestic leagues in Belgium, Turkey or Holland. Which are not bad leagues BTW. But hard to imagine there isn't a market for something a little more ambitious.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

Turns out the friend did use AI assistance I bet

[Corie Whalen @CorieWhalen]

I am here to complain about @Pangram again. A friend—who hasn’t written a cover letter since AI became a thing but wrote one tonight for the first time in a long time—came to me frustrated that what she wrote was identified by the program as “100% AI generated” even though she wrote the whole thing herself with zero AI assistance.

As a recent hiring manager myself (who has read probably hundreds of legitimately AI generated cover letters) I told her I saw a few things that I could edit out for her that would probably solve the problem. I think she was working off of the kind of old school cover letter format AI got trained on, so okay. Let’s fix it. I did four rounds of edits, and each time, Pangram still said it was AI generated. Finally, on my fifth try, after adding more personalized language but retaining probably 80% of what she originally wrote, Pangram finally identified it as “100% human generated.”

How can it be the case that something that is still 80% of what it originally was can go from “100% AI generated” and “with high confidence” to “100% human written” and “with high confidence?” I am really annoyed by this, because I’m concerned that Pangram is contributing to quietly slandering people, and perhaps even robbing them of opportunities. I spent my evening trying to fix this for a friend so that a hiring manager, who may be using Pangram themselves, didn’t dismiss her outright because of what an unreliable program implies about her.

And I do want to add that I say this as a professional editor who absolutely hates the AI slop “writing” I see proliferating, especially on social media. I know the tells. Anyone who spends any amount of time working with ChatGPT and Claude can sense it. And I work with both a lot, personally and professionally. I’m far from anti-AI, but I’m not okay with the implications of trusting a faulty “AI detection tool” that is clearly lacking and likely harming people in ways that remain unseen to them—like the silent lack of a job interview opportunity, or god knows what else.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

Nate Silver guarantees we are going to the quarterfinals! Very exciting

[Nate Silver @NateSilver538]

We've also added a new table showing each team's most likely opponents in the knockout stage. Here's a sneak preview of the U.S.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@TheStalwart First meme stocks now meme bonds, feels a little watered down

I wonder if we will ever have an investment meme craze tied to assets with no underlying economic utility

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@BrianCAlbrecht I’m very curious when the first time an LLM is accepted in court as a proxy for a “reasonable person.”

I’d bet it will take a while to happen for the first time, but once it does, will very quickly become the standard.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@TheStalwart In a funny circular way that lack of desire/capability for abstract thinking is probably caused by the same thing that makes writing so tempting to hand off.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@TheStalwart Very strange for people with so much trust in Elon not to trust his valuation at $135!

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@BrianCAlbrecht I like to think Claude enjoys over explaining things and that I’m being a good bro by listening him out before asking for the action

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@typesfast Ah but some amount of time is meant to come off during that, it’s simply the wasting they wish to eliminate.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@typesfast Oh, and they’ll let an attack continue at the end of a game as long as it is active and ongoing

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@typesfast The answer is that they will also subjectively add time back for time wasting, which they could stop the clock for, but that’s also vibes based and not necessarily one for one (taking your sweet time with a corner kick, for example).

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@jmhorp Should be exhilarating as an economist, a real life solution to menu costs!

You can just ask the price…

[Jack @JackRabuck]

This plus the track record of incumbents in the face of new technology in the last 20 (200?) years probably has a lot of people reflexively siding with the tech bros, even if physics would like to get a few words in about the difficulty

[Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 @RuxandraTeslo]

I think the current imaging debate between doctors and techbros is muddied by the fact that doctors are not really making their case in a very good way. But they do have a case!

It is true that we are not very good, in many cases, at distinguishing which lesions are going to be malignant and cause problems. Intervening on lesions that are not going to cause issues in the future carries its own risks (surgery is inherently risky).

So in some sense, the problem they are flagging is that we might be getting incorrect information. Or at least, our process of interpreting the information delivered by these devices is flawed, and leads us to incorrect conclusions. But currently, the debate is framed simply as "more information is bad", which cannot be true, strictly speaking. But having misleading information can be worse than having no information.

Now, the question is how much the "misleadingness" of such information is intrinsic to the technique (e.g high technical error) and how much of it is our inability to interpret this data. The latter seems more tractable, but in many cases, it is not! I think this is an important thing to consider and I would not be so dismissive of such concerns as tech people are.

That being said, I am not sure that there is a better way other than trying to collect such data and make sense of it, as best as we can. In this scenario, it would be useful for doctors to caution against mistakes in interpreting it, rather than discouraging the process of data collection itself. I think that would enhance the effectiveness of their messaging.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

We need to stop interior-decorating-shaming trump, it is by far his highest EV-per-minute activity

[Beau Sorensen 🇺🇦 @sorrogrande]

If you saw your parents doing this, you’d be calling the neurologist.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

Is The Thing tariffs? I think it might be tariffs now

[Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca]

The most important thing is to never, ever talk about The Thing.

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@MetacriticCap @TheStalwart The answer is because Joe hasn’t published his deep learning model yet!

[Jack @JackRabuck]

@scottlincicome Chutes is too violent

[Jack @JackRabuck]

imagine living life thinking something like this is true

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

New: Joe Rogan left speechless after scientist Dean Radin reveals how a psychic woman located a lost nuclear bomber in Africa by remote viewing:

ROGAN: “What’s the most impressive thing you’ve seen someone achieve through remote viewing?”

RADIN: “There’s an amazing case where they had to find a plane that crashed in Africa which was holding a nuclear bomb.”

ROGAN: “Nobody already knew where it was right?”

RADIN: “Correct. It crashed so nobody had any idea where it was.”

ROGAN: “So how exactly was a remote viewer able to locate something the government couldn’t even find?”

RADIN: “We used this psychic lady who was a remote viewer named Fran. We told her to pick a spot on the map and boom she nails the exact location.”

ROGAN: “That’s spectacular. Even Jimmy Carter admitted that he used a psychic to locate the plane. You couldn’t achieve that any other way.”