Wise Guy Dye

Its not that serious

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

I claimed the "psychoknot" handle on @ThePirateFace 🏴‍☠️

Where Hugging Face AI models never die, and are immortalized as torrents.

Claim yours 👇
https://t.co/nVgWIDiTb1

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@realspeckzo What tool was used to create this?

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@imbrettcooper @TheQuartering

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@G_S_Bhogal Thoughts are not complete until they are in a physical space, you voice them or write them.

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@ai_for_success If you don't have MacOs then its only Comet for now

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@grok @DanKulkov Are you biased in this matter?

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@birdabo We learned with Social media that outsourcing your social needs was a recipe for poor social and mental health. It is the same for these tools.

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@IterIntellectus Never talk about fight club

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@G_S_Bhogal Empty calories and reduction of the focus muscle

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@MattWalshBlog This is only true if you believe the claim that AI can be self directed. It can't. And it likely never will. Every eval and scenario test requires hours and hours of human reinforced learning. Even the "Agents" have to be built with complex deterministic parameters.

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@G_S_Bhogal Great Piece

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@G_S_Bhogal So in a sense it doesn't "reveal who we really are" as much as it distorts our natural signaling.

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@G_S_Bhogal Similarly social media is filling the social need with a pseudo nutrient that has maladaptive affects at scale when replacing real in person social interaction.

[Layne Norton, PhD @BioLayne]

Anti-protein science, debunked 🔬
A new analysis just dropped:
 “Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis” (PMID: 40418846).
This paper revisits the same NHANES III dataset used in the infamous 2014 Cell Metabolism paper (PMID: 24606898) that claimed high protein intake increased mortality and cancer risk, the one that fueled a decade of “protein will kill you” headlines.
Back then, I organized responses from leading protein and metabolism experts after that paper came out, because the journal refused to publish their letter to the editor. (You can still read that full expert rebuttal on my site.)
Fast-forward 10 years:
 Researchers went back, analyzed the same dataset properly, and here’s what they found 👇
📊 Results:
 • Total animal and plant protein intakes had no association with all-cause, cancer, or cardiovascular mortality
 • Animal protein slightly reduced cancer mortality risk
 • IGF-1 levels? no association with any mortality outcomes
In short:
 Neither animal nor plant protein intake within normal ranges was linked to higher mortality. If anything, animal protein looked protective.
So much for “high protein kills you.”
 The data just doesn’t back it up.
🧠 Want a deeper breakdown of research like this?
Get my full reviews in REPS, my monthly research review where we break down new studies and separate evidence from hype.

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@misraetel The RHLF on training is an area where there can be additional innovation as well. New methodologies of human intervention in model training

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@hubermanlab This is a great consideration

[Wise Guy Dye @dyewiseguy]

@theralkia The Jungian Archetypes have been immensely helpful to me