Mike 🧐

Msc. Comp Sci. Observing markets and people. All stocks/assets posted are to be viewed as artwork and not recommendations. #gold #silver #crypto #swingtrading

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

Inflation, or noise? You tell me... Either way, #GotPhysical?

#silver #gold #commodities #soybeans #corn #sugar #notfinancialadvice #art

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@hanifbali Riksbanken är som mest omtyckt bland befolkningen när de är expansiva (låga realräntor) och som minst omtyckta när de är restriktiva (höga realräntor). Så länge det är gemene mans bild så kommer Sverige fortsätta ner i lågräntefördärvet.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@hanifbali Tack Hanif för att du fokuserar på detta. Många av Sveriges (och västs) problem härstammar från (för) billigt kapital och "kick the can down the road"-mentalitet.

För att se den skyldige är det bara att svenskarna ser sig själva i spegeln...

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@thesetupfactory Even better for us that joined early. 😉

[Nikunj Kothari @nikunj]

All you had to do to make life changing wealth was to invest in ~every public company along the 237

[Ryan Hart @thisdudelikesAI]

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.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@Qeruiem På mitt jobb är en utvecklare som inte är van användare av LLMs oanställbar, väldigt stor red flag under en intervju.

Man behöver inte vara expert, kanske har ens tidigare arbetsplats haft tillgång till kassa modeller eller dylikt, men då behöver man åtminstone utforskat själv.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@kruxigt @Vargfakta Tror tyvärr inte det. Känns som öppet mål att fråga Magdalena Andersson om de tänker stoppa inflationsjusteringen av statliga skatten men ändå kommer aldrig den frågan.

[Gregory Krupinski, CPA, CMT @G_krupins]

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

[Gergely Orosz @GergelyOrosz]

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

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@alex__roc @Investeraren För att skatt på kapital år lågt i Sverige och skatt på arbete är högt.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@HankSweden Frågan på sikt är väl dock vad den riktiga kostnaden för en prompt faktiskt är. Idag är det kraftigt subventionerat och det är på kort sikt givet att satsa på AI över att anställa, men vad händer om AI-kostnaderna skulle öka med 100x?

P.S. 10x dagens kostnad är försvarbart.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@HankSweden Många skeptiker i kommentarerna men jag tror du har rätt i det stora hela. Innan årsskiftet använde jag AI för bollning/utkast, den dög inte för mer. Men nu skriver jag inte kod själv längre. Agenten gör fel ibland och behöver handledning, men att koda 2026 är svårmotiverat.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@BuschEbba Varför har ni inte gjort mer för vården den här mandatperioden? Fråga från en väljare.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@AsfyXi @MadsPosting

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@AndreasSteno If everyone is a plumber I don't expect that their salary will be very high.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@motallt @Expressen För att kommunism anses fint och ädelt.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@Ten_Bagger Synd att demokraterna också har shady aktieaffärer i bagaget. Annars hade man väl kritiserat detta mer tänker jag.

[Mike 🧐 @ObservationWins]

@anderslindberg S har alltid agerat för att vinna val och inte brytt sig så mycket om vad man ska göra efter valet. Senast under regeringsställning hade vi ju mutförsöken med engångssumma till bilägare och pensionärer.