Msc. Comp Sci. Observing markets and people. All stocks/assets posted are to be viewed as artwork and not recommendations. #gold#silver#crypto#swingtrading
@hanifbali Riksbanken Àr som mest omtyckt bland befolkningen nÀr de Àr expansiva (lÄga realrÀntor) och som minst omtyckta nÀr de Àr restriktiva (höga realrÀntor). SÄ lÀnge det Àr gemene mans bild sÄ kommer Sverige fortsÀtta ner i lÄgrÀntefördÀrvet.
@hanifbali Tack Hanif för att du fokuserar pÄ detta. MÄnga av Sveriges (och vÀsts) problem hÀrstammar frÄn (för) billigt kapital och "kick the can down the road"-mentalitet.
För att se den skyldige Àr det bara att svenskarna ser sig sjÀlva i spegeln...
A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts.
So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world.
What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable.
Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations.
The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead.
Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described.
The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding.
The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months.
Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.
Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now.
She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.
@Qeruiem PÄ mitt jobb Àr en utvecklare som inte Àr van anvÀndare av LLMs oanstÀllbar, vÀldigt stor red flag under en intervju.
Man behöver inte vara expert, kanske har ens tidigare arbetsplats haft tillgÄng till kassa modeller eller dylikt, men dÄ behöver man Ätminstone utforskat sjÀlv.
@kruxigt@Vargfakta Tror tyvÀrr inte det. KÀnns som öppet mÄl att frÄga Magdalena Andersson om de tÀnker stoppa inflationsjusteringen av statliga skatten men ÀndÄ kommer aldrig den frÄgan.
Could be wrong but I think we might in the very early phases of non-US markets outperforming for an extended time. Higher low (lacking in previous fakeouts) along w more attractive valuation and yield. Increased longer term / not actively managed allocations to non-US markets
Exactly.
AI is an amazing tool for those already experts in a domain and makes a massive difference already.
It also gives a false sense of confidence when you nothing about a domain - and v easy to get stuck
@HankSweden FrÄgan pÄ sikt Àr vÀl dock vad den riktiga kostnaden för en prompt faktiskt Àr. Idag Àr det kraftigt subventionerat och det Àr pÄ kort sikt givet att satsa pÄ AI över att anstÀlla, men vad hÀnder om AI-kostnaderna skulle öka med 100x?
P.S. 10x dagens kostnad Àr försvarbart.
@HankSweden MÄnga skeptiker i kommentarerna men jag tror du har rÀtt i det stora hela. Innan Ärsskiftet anvÀnde jag AI för bollning/utkast, den dög inte för mer. Men nu skriver jag inte kod sjÀlv lÀngre. Agenten gör fel ibland och behöver handledning, men att koda 2026 Àr svÄrmotiverat.
@anderslindberg S har alltid agerat för att vinna val och inte brytt sig sÄ mycket om vad man ska göra efter valet. Senast under regeringsstÀllning hade vi ju mutförsöken med engÄngssumma till bilÀgare och pensionÀrer.