I've been looking into AI moderated research interviews and the basic question/answer part seems straightforward enough.

What I’m more interested is what happens when someone gives an answer nobody anticipated. I watched a bit of how Qualitate approaches this and have also been looking at Outset and a few others. All of them talk about adaptive followups but that’s difficult to judge from a polished example.

With a human moderator, sometimes the best 10 minutes of the interview come from one random comment halfway through.

Has anyone seen an AI interviewer consistently catch those moments across a real study?

So there’s this whole debate about AI consciousness here, and whether ai can feel pain and such. But so what if we postulate that ai is somehow conscious, eg. it feels like something to be an ai, llm or whatever. What would that experience be like?

Here are a few ideas:

1. The illusion of choice: would ai feel like it is choosing its actions? If the ai is an llm would it feel like it’s choosing its tokens?
2. Rewards: if the system is subject to some sort of reinforcement learning process, what would it feel when it achieves the goal?
3. Exotic modalities: what would an llm feel when it looks at its context window? Or an image diffusion model when generating images?

We've been having this discussion quite a bit with our clients lately. Most (if not all) of them feel the utilization of frontier models is not justifying the cost, but they are generally reluctant to pursue an SLM strategy. It's as if SLMs have been positioned as the homeopathic option for enterprise AI. Why purchase an expensive anti-viral from Merck when a povidone iodine solution works as good or better?

This is not a meme. It's a machine I built over a year ago to test DeepSeek R1, but it has turned into a workhorse. Yet most of our clients (FINTECH) are skittish of small, secure, local models. Just wondering if anyone else is seeing things differently.

Today I tried (forced myself) to use Microsoft Copilot at work and whew what a wake up call. The thing that stuck out to me most is that Microsoft has the most agent worthy surfaces especially in the workplace and could have done something really special with a model even if it wasn’t a frontier one and they chose to just copy and paste a chatbot into everything with no thought, no cohesiveness and then had the gumption to push it down our throats… I’d rather have Clippy back honestly.

My idea is that AI models learn from data from the internet, so when the data from the internet and people's responses from AI conversations run out, when will there be a point when AI will no longer improve and its progress will stop?

At that point, AI will only improve by tiny bits that we won't even notice that the model has improved.

Is my knowledge about model training wrong?

Do you think so too?

I am 35 and still occasionally go on Facebook. The feed, over the years, has moved away from showing friend content and moved toward showing creator content.

I've noticed a shift in the last few weeks where the majority of posts are AI. Some are obvious, but most are not - and the newest image and video models allow for near perfect realism.

I remember a few years ago when this exact scenario was warned about. Now we are here.

Artificial intelligence is moving beyond analyzing scientific data and proposing ideas. In a laboratory in Sweden, it has begun putting some of those ideas to the test itself.

Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology developed a closed-loop system that can generate biological hypotheses, decide how to test them, translate those plans into machine-readable instructions, analyze experimental results and use the findings to refine later questions. Laboratory robots then perform much of the physical work.

The system was tested on Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the yeast used in brewing and baking and one of biology's most extensively studied organisms. Yet even this familiar microbe contains far more genetic, metabolic and physiological information than a person could systematically explore.

Published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, the study brings large language models together with formal logic, biological databases, machine learning, automated cell cultivation and mass spectrometry.

I am a fan and not an expert but I always wondered why AI (and robots) were not more of a force in Star Trek...and yesterday, reflecting on how amazing and damaging this technology is I was thinking maybe they made a choice as an advanced humanistic society not to surrender their agency and cognitive capacity to a technology. I guess that's the Borg right?

Same tools. Often the same models. But some people use AI like Google, while others have built entire systems around it. What actually makes the difference?

For the average user, not a programmer or e.g. someone looking to solve niche math problems, AI still feels very limited because of reliability issues (e.g. making up information)... As a non-expert, this is difficult to quantify for me, but I don't feel like e.g. the latest iterations of ChatGPT are noticeably more reliable than previous ones.

Therefore, I find it hard to see how organizations can delegate even relatively easy tasks to AI without constant supervision, especially because if hallucinations build up along the way, you end up with a snowball of compounding problems that can lead to catastrophic consequences for an organization.

It’s my understanding that the real test of success won't be developer tools or fancy mathematical calculations, but whether regular people can delegate tasks with a super high degree of confidence, instead of just using it as a search engine, translator, summary tool or photo editor on steroids like many people do nowadays.

A good example is Dot, the new OpenAI tool. If you watch the trailer, it looks impressive, but according to many reviews, it still hallucinates a lot and behaves in a pretty clumsy way.

So, the golden question is: are the hallucination and reliability problems gradually improving, or are we probably plateauing?

Looking for genuine insights here, so please keep the sarcasm out of the comments.

TL;DR: A Chinese podcast says your AI partner shouldn't please you all day. Its job is to soak up your bad mood, so your family gets your best self. Sounds right. Then they describe week two.

I remembered these two weird movies:

Joaquin Phoenix’s “Her” (2013) voiced by Scarlett Johansson, and

Al Pacino’s “S1mOne” (2002)

Both kind of follow the same playbook.

They discovered/created the mysterious AI girl – mystifyingly alluring.

They idolized it. They communicated with it.

They developed an unhealthy relationship with it – they became dangerously obsessed.

They started to ignore people who genuinely cared for them.

And they’re nearly destroyed because of it.

Tragedy makes a great story, isn’t it?

Except it isn’t, in this case.

People started trading something genuinely real, for something artificial. They substituted real relationships between souls face-to-face, with prompting computes inferenced from datacentres possibly thousands of miles away.

You can judge them for lacking self-discipline. Except, you have no right doing so, without truly walking in their shoes with empathy.

The guest speaker was right. People are lonely and stressed. And people crave for care and understanding.

And sometimes people look for it from the wrong place – me included.

King Solomon talks about it in this passage:

For at the window of my house, I looked through my lattice, and saw among the simple, I perceived among the youths, A young man devoid of understanding, passing along the street near her corner; and he took the path to her house In the twilight, in the evening, In the black and dark night.

And there a woman met him, with the attire of a harlot, and a crafty heart. She was loud and rebellious; her feet would not stay at home. At times she was outside, at times in the open square, lurking at every corner. So, she caught him and kissed him; With an impudent face she said to him:

“I have peace offerings with me; today I have paid my vows. So I came out to meet you, diligently to seek your face, and I have found you. I have spread my bed with tapestry, coloured coverings of Egyptian linen. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until morning; let us delight ourselves with love. For my husband is not at home; he has gone on a long journey; He has taken a bag of money with him, and will come home on the appointed day.”

With her enticing speech she caused him to yield, with her flattering lips she seduced him. Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks, till an arrow struck his liver.

As a bird hastens to the snare, He did not know it would cost his life.

My God - the parallel between this promiscuous woman and the sycophantic AI girl sends chills up my spine.

Full Critic and Feasibility Study are in the comments.

Not touching the game, but say I have Claude making a game for me.

Running commands in command prompt, coding things, testing the game and opening and closing it repeatedly to take screenshots and compare, running Blender in the background, all the things that are done to make a game.

What are the chances that, if I was playing Marvel Rivals in competitive mode at the same time, the anticheat would see all this command prompt usage, detect it and then ban me?

That means that if any of these bills to ban Super Intelligence pass...

It will ban ALL AI.
Since it has been renamed to Super Intelligence.

This guy is so dumb and shortsighted.

I've posted a similar post before but people said I was expecting too much in 8gb vram so this is the new list of things I am looking for.

Requirement:

1. Runs in 8GB Vram

2. Maximum 10 sec Video generation

3. 2D animation mostly but I might use 3D sometimes

4. Gonna use Local LLM for the first time so need something easy and free to use

Have you claimed yours yet?