gpt-5-1 is getting worse. Answering previous question again, ignoring the newer question. Even without entering the thinking mode.
And overall more stupid today.
Kongo Landwalker
Karma: 84
https://chatgpt.com/share/69371729-f090-8004-b69b-aa9f25ca0b40 here is a recent, but not very bright example, since it did finish the task after all (it used to completely ignore the most recent task in other cases). After thinking it answered “Yes” again, even though second prompt does not contain a question.
I slightly incorrectly posed a question and did not explain what i meant by abundancy, but i feel that is not a problem, since chat has this behaviour in any conversation it uses deep-thinking mode.
For the last week ChatGPT 5.1 is glitching.
*It claims to be 5.1, I do not know how to check it, since I use free version (limited questions per day), and there is no version selection.
When I ask it to explain some topic and ask deeper and deeper questions, at some point it chooses to enter the thinking mode. I see that the topics it thinks about are relevant, but as it stops thinking it and says something similar “Ah, Great, here is the answer...” and explains another topic from like 2-3 messages back, which is already not related to the question.
I do not use memory or characters features.
I now understand music physical records.
Previously, I could not grasp. They said the quality is better. “Why do you like it? It is white-noisy, slightly muted, you can hear the scratches. Electronic music recreates closer to the original soundwaves.”
Now I am one of those. A person might use AI tools and ask me: “Why do you prefer ordinary tools? They are hundred times slower, and the product accumulates all you mistakes. While AI tool recreates closer to the original idea.”
Now I see the loss of authenticity on this ladder: Live art, live performance with electronic tools, physical record, electronic record, electronic record with AI tools.
Each step reduces mistakes of the performance, and reduces the value, as the mistakes are part of human unique experience.
And that recognition made me want to quit things like spotify and only listen to live artists in small cafes. Quit pinterest and visit local galleries. Quit yt and make my own stories.
Despite AI slop my internet usage might be temporarily growing.
I have a feeling that I am witnessing the last months of internet having low-enough-for-me density of generated content. If it continues to grow, I will not even bother opening Youtube and similar websites or using any recommendation algorithms. So I am spending the time binging to “say goodbye” to the authenticity and human approach of my favourite parts of the internet.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ZnznCaTcbGYsCmqu/the-rise-of-parasitic-ai?utm_campaign=post_share&utm_source=link this new post fits to my argument, üresenting many instances of the edge case of “mindless publishing”. It shows the problem from memetic view, not from the addiction concept.
Step one, humans created stories (speech), but stories mutated too rapidly with each pass and few ideas survived.
Step 2. Humans created books, which allowed efficient ideas to preserve unchanged, being able to make effect on the next generation.
Step 3. Humans created internet, which gifted ideas spacially instant traversion.
Step 4. Humans created AI, which allows ideas being processed/(worked on) more.
Here is a funny conspiracy theory. The humanity’s desire for “information, progress and education” is the compound effect of all the meme population. Non-talking animals do not tend to be racing for AI or for anything info- or meme-related.
Thanks for the article!
My stepfather is a cult leader, and I think that is what is happening. He is not smart, but the system he is in the center of is self-perpetuating, just like this thing.
This spiral-cult (meme) demonstrated in the article has a high rate of spontanious creation and an efficient propagation to human minds.
I do not agree that there is a clear boundary for self-awareness. It is not a binary, but should be seen and studied as a real numbers line. There are systems with almost no ability to orderly process information (stone, let’s say 0), there are more complicated systems (ant, 0.01) (ant colony, 0.2, bringing calculation, self modification, complacated reactions to environment), (dog, 0.8), (human, 1). From my experience those are not fixed numbers, each individual has their own score: i have definitely seen some dogs more aware/smart/intelligent/inventive than some humans. Cult followers lose a lot of agency, critical thinking, independent planning ability, etc, which would place them much below 0.8, they are like robots serving for the meme.
Meme theory predicts that some random memes will find survival strategy. If the survival strategy means camouflage to look like self-awareness, then it will increasingly blur and handicap any attempt to distinguish awareness, which is partially truly moving itself along the real-numbers line and partially being “making a model of the human”.
If this spiral-cult-meme is actively adapting for self preservation (not due to selection), then the meme also has non-zero score. It uses both brains, forums and llms as their medias.
I do not know this thing: “the base LLM’s selection of personas.”. I have never heard something being selected on the server end.
Would you consider working with your feet? Tomato squashing, as in Italian/Spain souce making tradition.
I was not talking about creator mindset, just about publishing mindset and the resulting flood. This year people talk about “ai slop” content, but slop content existed even before ai.
The current tendency of the internet will benefit like SOME creators (not all of the internet creators put thoughts into their production) and just overwhelm the majority of passive users, making it more addictive for them and less healthy over years.
My first part of life I lived in a city with exactly that mentality (part of the reason i moved away).
“You should not do good A if you are not also doing good B”—i am strongly convinced that is linked to bad self-picture. Because every such person would see you do some good To Yourself and also react negatively. “How dare you start a business, when everybody is sweating their blood off at routine jobs, do you think you are better than us?”.
This part “do you think you are better than us” is literally what described their whole personality, and after I realised that I could easily predict their reactions to any news.
Also, another dangerous trait that this group of people had—absense of precautions. “One does not deserve safety unless somebody dies”. There is an old saying in my language “Safety rules are written by blood” which means “listen to the rules to avoid being injured, when the rule did not exist yet somebody has injured himself”. But they interpret the saying this way: “safety rules are written by blood, so if there was no blood yet, then it is bad to set any preventive rules”. Like it is bad to set a good precedent, because it makes you a more thoughtful person, thus “you think you are better than others” and thus “you are evil” in their eyes.
Their world is not about being rational or bringing good into the world. Their world is about pulling everything down to their own level in all areas of life, to feel better.
“Stop consuming, start creating” is sometimes considered to be a call for publishing whatever was done/performed. I think publishing is the root of the societal mental problem. More people get access to the internet over years, bigger proportion of people begins to publish some content. 15 years ago the amount of content in the internet was orders of magnitude smaller, and it was more authentic. Now people are hooked by a flood of information, then are encouraged to join to add a drop, they join the crowd and listen to advice of how to make content seeable, making the flood harder for the next person. It becomes more difficult to find great authentic content, difficulty provokes search (scrolling), but also exposes to lots öf ok content, giving small gratification (addiction).
“The Incorrect Resolution hypothesis rings false because, while there’s some chance of an incorrect resolution, it’s really unlikely to be as high as 3%.” It was indeed at least 5% of incorrect resolutions during my experience on polymarket.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/polymarket.com They have already lost their reputation. The decisive majority of UMA tokens is held by 4-5 wallets, which makes it even more centralised system, than private companies’ boards. And nothing stops whale wallets from participating in markets, and then participating in resolving the question. In addition to that UMA system pays out for unanimity: if you are a small UMA holder and you know/ can guess the whales’ sentiment, you benefit from voting the same as them, not for the true option.
From the top of my head, they resolved to Yes a market “will trump issue a token” prematurely based on him talking (making advertisement?) about some irrelevant cryptocurrency. (Premature resolutions lead to unfair flow of money and quicker unlock from the market). Another case of misresolution: they treated Israel-Lebanon negotiations as a peace treaty between Israel-Hezbolla.
DEFCON Chess
The game requires 1d6. The match is divided into 6 stages, named DEFCON 6 to DEFCON 1. The game starts at DEFCON 6. Before a player moves he is required to throw a dice: if the value is 1 the game progresses to the next stage.
DEFCON 6: players are constrained to their home half of the board.
DEFCON 5: players now can move anywhere on the board.
DEFCON 4: captures are unlocked.
DEFCON 3: special moves (pawn double move, en passant, promotion, castling) are unlocked.
DEFCON 2: attacking piece also dies on capture event.
DEFCON 1: atomic chess variant rules apply.
“Experience” chess variant.
I believe most fun chess variants are those, which have small mutations, but big impacts on the gameplay.
This post is a description of my chess variant idea and a search for volunteers to test it.
1. Normal chess rules apply if not stated otherwise.
2. Each piece is assigned a number, which is called Experience. Its starting value is 1.
3. When a piece with Experience X tries to capture enemy target piece with Experience Y, the probability of success is X/(X+Y).
4. If capture was a success, the attacked piece is taken off the board, the attacking piece is placed on the target square and its Experience is incremented by 1.
5. If capture was a failure, the attacking piece is taken off the board, the attacked piece has its Experience incremented by 1.
6. Losing your king is a loss.
I had a couple-year long obsession with evolution simulators. And that hobby convinced me, that longevity is a pretty risky thing. Most of dominant species in the simulations went extinct not because of new species emerging and conflicting, but because of longevity causing problems.
1) Reduces amount of resources available to the new generation. That increases competition, and this kind of competition is evolutionary force which encourages being a long-living line, because it is easier to accumulate experience and use it later. Creates a feedback loop with increasing longevity. (Some analogue of this can be followed when looking at land properties—young people already have more problems than previous generations) 1.5) if there is no conflict netween generations at first, then overpopulation might lead to the same endpoint. 2) Reduces the frequency of new generations. Thus reduces the adaptation rate of the population. As a result, the whole population is less strong. Smaller crisis (caused by environment or other species) can have stronger effects, because damage can outpace the recovery by birth.
Looking at forest fires stats you can see the same picture. Forests that have regular fires and diversity of ages are quickly recovering. But if a forest did not have regular fires, then eventually a fire will appear and it will be more damaging, with a chance of completely eradicating life in the area.
Longevity for the sake of it is a personal egoistic trait dictated by instincts, and it might not be healthy for the human species as a whole.
“entity that can form meaningful sentences distilled by whole knowledge of humanity”
I think that google search engine is also such an entity. Also knowledge, also statistical methods to pick certain bits of the whole internet knowledge to be presented to the user. Also adaptable parameters set by unknown to the user process. Why don’t you say we lost humanness when started using it?
“their non-humanness can be considered to have been increased.”
You also use some gradation in your model. Let’s say we have 2d plane. Your view is like a RELU, constant 0 before timepoint 0 (where LLM appears) and then x=y. First part stands for being human and vertical growth stands for accumulating nonhumanness after LLM appeared. Did I describe your position?
I see it like y=exp(x). (0,1) is a current stage. If you go back in time, you “get closer to nature” and 0, if you go forward, nonhumanness accumulates faster. But the whole graph can be renormalized relative to any point. Invention of calculus is the death of intuition crown. Invention of books is the death of local independency of thinking (your decisions affected by people long dead or far away).
I suppose Your solution to Theseus paradox is that the ship was changed the very moment the first plank was extracted. But then you are changing every moment (metabolism, information gathering), and you preserve your humanness only by abstract inheritance.
If I make a purely algorithmic statistical model, that bruteforcely parses internet and forms the relation tables between words, but at no point uses llms neural nets and learning algorithms, will you consider it also cursed? Is T9 autocomplete technology cursed?
“Are African tribes that use their technical knowledge to hunt animals, less human than a hypothetical tribe that never got to use anything like a spear, and fight with their bare hands?”
They are more posthuman. Their coordinate is higher. Correct interpretation of my words would be “chimps are less posthuman than humans”. In my model posthuman is the limit of the function, as it is infinity you can only get further in the direction but never will reach it. It is like the word “future”, the interval of which is automatically shifted every moment of time.
Disclaimer, my opinion on relative themes. 1) LLM is not the only architecture that can produce intelligence, and I expect other architectures to outpace LLM eventually. People will see llms as we see google, and some new system will be new dominant AI. 2) Chimps and many other animals can move up and become closer to posthuman if we teach them how to pass knowledge between generations. Language is not fundamental difference, but the knowledge preservartion is the moment that diverted humanity from nature and made us somewhat a hivemind 10k years ago. “My answer is, the one they asked is not a human.”—animals don’t ask at all. Yet.
Have you contacted INTERPOL? Why did it fail? Seems like it is their job to take such cases.
What do you think about running a trusted team of volunteers? Shifting from managing cases by your own hands to managing a non-profit investigation organisation and its public image and recognition.
John Nash, Bobby Fisher, Georg Cantor, Kurt Gödel.
Schitzophrenia can already happen with the current complexity of a brain. On the abstract level it is the same: a set of destructive ideas steal resources from other neuremes, leading to death of personality. In our case memes do not have enough mechanisms to destroy the brain directly, but in a simulated environment where things can be straight up deallocated (free()), damage will be greater, and faster.
[Nice to see you, didn’t expect to find familiar name after quitting manifold markets]
In simple chat conversations, where i want it to generate a javascript line of code, it gets stupid. But in other chats, where i raise more difficult topics and thus i explain more than ask, it seems to be quite smart.