mia

hincha del pastel de papa y los gatos

[mia @miawithapen]

hoy me sacan mi primera muela de juicio y soñé que se me caían todos los dientes sin motivo

[mia @miawithapen]

me siento muy maternal hacia este individuo

[ゆきみもち @snow_omochi]

小さないのち。。。ウチに来て欲しい。

[mia @miawithapen]

la q graba gritando HACELO NENE HACELO NENE por favor se me caen las lagrimas

[mia @miawithapen]

#notmyAdam

[flam @likesrosies]

him acting all nonchalant as if he didn’t just do ten backflips in his head from pure joy at finally being able to be close to the love of his life

[mia @miawithapen]

el video en clave alta, las luces quemadísimas, los colores saturados, la ligera viñeta… emociona

[W @wisin]

Damas y caballeros, bienvenidos a la UNIVERSIDAD DEL PERREO

Haz PRE-SAVE del álbum ahora mismo en el link de la bio.🔗

[blue @words_salad]

The problem isn't that it's iconic. It's that it embodies all the core themes of the story: hubris, the consequences of violence, arrogance and deceit, letting human pride win over intellect and that becoming your downfall. Replacing it with "man shoots arrow cuz angry" is crazy.

[mia @miawithapen]

CÓMO QUE “NO FUNCIONABA” QUÉ ES LO QUE ACABAS DE DECIR ENTONCES GORDO

[Christopher Nolan Archives @NolanAnalyst]

Christopher Nolan revealed that he wanted to include the famous “Nobody” wordplay from Homer’s The Odyssey in the film but ultimately couldn’t make it work.

The joke relies on Odysseus telling Polyphemus that his name is “Nobody,” so when the Cyclops cries, “Nobody is attacking me!”, the others leave, thinking nothing is wrong.

According to Nolan, the pun simply didn’t translate naturally into modern dialogue.

[𝕮𝖍𝖔𝖒𝖎 🇦🇷 @chomickirio]

Toda la vida nos quisieron hacer creer que por ser sudacas teníamos que agachar la cabeza, confundiendo humildad con sumisión.

Esto decía Domingo Faustino Sarmiento hace 180 años‼️

[josefrita @JoseePoy]

Funcionaste y ahora también HORA DE LIMPIAR LAS MALAS VIBRAS Y ATRAER LUZ

[leonel @leoneltudo]

🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

[Vicky @vickytedije]

Jajajajaaja los edits que necesitamos
La Scaloneta 🤝Hamilton

[mia @miawithapen]

genuinamente QUE MIERDA ES ESTO

[Arrepentidos de Milei @ArrepentidosLLA]

Le pusieron luces con los colores de Estados Unidos al Planetario y bailaron música country. Encima un montón de palermitanos fueron.
QEPD Argentina 1810-2023

[mia @miawithapen]

@veokio GENIA DE RE MIERDA TE AMO

[mia @miawithapen]

😛😛😛

[nachosan @_nachosan]

Nadie nadie nadie de este país puso en su prode que Jordania nos metia uno. Es toda nuestra.

[mia @miawithapen]

acabo de ducharme x 1ra vez en el depto y me di cuenta q me olvide el peine (me estoy mudando de a poquito) así que me estoy desenradando el pelo con un TENEDOR

[Papa León XIV @Pontifex_es]

Las inteligencias artificiales no viven una experiencia, no poseen un cuerpo, no pasan por la alegría y el dolor, no maduran en las relaciones ni conocen desde dentro lo que significan el amor, el trabajo, la amistad y la responsabilidad. Tampoco tienen una conciencia moral: no juzgan el bien y el mal, no captan el sentido último de las situaciones ni asumen el peso de las consecuencias. Pueden imitar, pueden simular pero no conocen lo que producen, porque no residen en el horizonte afectivo, relacional y espiritual en el que el ser humano se hace sabio. #MagnificaHumanitas

[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.