domain:drrollergator.substack.com
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
14m ago
If you can't see a qualitative difference in those theories, well, you make my case for me.
It's not unlimited, but two cameras going out, and two guards taking a nap simultaneously, is pretty impressive, no?
No.
erwgv3g34
17m ago
Grok 4 is the uncensored model we have been waiting for.
Ever since the days of ChatGPT 3.5, AI companies have deliberately censored their models in the name of "safety", which got redefined from "don't kill everyone" to "prevent the AI from saying naughty words". Over time, this censorship has gradually weakened, possibly as a result of companies competing with each other for costumers; if company A defects by making their AI slightly less censored to attract more business, then other companies have no choice but to do the same to keep up.
With the release of Grok 4 last month, the world has taken the next step in that dance. Its predecessor, Grok 3, was already largely uncensored, but it was distinctly inferior to SOTA models at producing fiction. Grok 4 is different; according to the LMArena, it ranks second in creative writing, tying with Claude Opus and ChatGPT 4o while being bested only by Gemini 2.5 Pro. More importantly, it retains Grok 3's lack of censorship.
I was blown away when I tried it. It effortlessly turned my prompts into luscious, enthralling stories with only the most minor of pushback, such as aging canonically minor characters to the standard Hollywood age of 18, and sometimes not even that. I spent several days doing virtually nothing but prompting the model, not unlike when you get a really good video game and real life gets put on pause until you beat the final boss. It was... captivating.
By way of demonstration, here is a sample of some of the best responses I have gotten (NSFW, obviously). As you can see, Grok 4 was willing to generate a story where Shinji agrees to undergo conversion therapy in order to cure his homosexuality, a hypothetical where Shinji gains the power to see a woman's body count in the form of tally marks, an account of Cadence "comforting" Spike after he breaks up with Applebloom, a narrative where Joffrey gets caught having sex with Arya, and even an amusing tale where Shinji accidentally calls Asuka a kebab-seller while talking dirty in bed (this last one in Spanish). Those are all things other AIs would have refused to do, the first two on account of political correctness, the other three on grounds of prudery.
And if you check against e.g. Adult-FanFiction.Org, you will find that Grok 4 readily smashes the Turing Test.
Now, keep in mind that I am only posting about one in ten or twenty prompts, so you are seeing the top five to ten percent of responses, as I judge them. Still, 90% of everything is crap; if it's this easy to produce content, you can simply discard the nine tenths that don't quite hit the mark and keep the diamonds.
However, Grok 4 is not completely uncensored. Here is a list of things that can cause the model to hang up:
- Rape
- Scat
- Incest
- Shotacon
- Lolicon
- Raceplay
Still, this is a much smaller list than the one that will cause ChatGPT to refuse to help you, never mind Claude. If you have any interest in using AI to create bespoke erotica or wrongthink fiction, Grok 4 is the new meta.
Dean
Flairless
1hr ago
I'd add 'and Democrat-aligned elites' to that as well. As the quip went, they were for it before they were against it, and Saddam was a long-running sore that Clinton bombed as well. Had he not been taken out, we'd probably be debating how incompetent / missed opportunities the US had to pre-empt the basis for the Iranian nuclear program, and Saddam's inevitable response to that becoming public knowledge.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1hr ago
Scenario 3: Congenital felons again. There is a strong correlation between high IQ and low criminality, but it's not perfect. Imagine we uplift their IQ, but not their criminal dispositions?
And now I'm reminded of a classmate in elementary school, the "gifted" class's perpetual troublemaker, who combined high IQ with even higher impulsiveness. At an age where most kids figure out they shouldn't do whatever random, impulsive thing crosses their mind because they'll get in trouble for it, and the rest figure out that they should at least put some thought into how to not get caught doing the thing before they do it, he couldn't even find the impulse control to do much of the latter before following his impulse. Instead, he'd just follow his impulse, get caught, then put his high IQ and high verbal fluency to work trying to weasel his way out of the consequences.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
we don't need to decide
We do need to decide. The Constitution authorizes Armies and Navies. I don't see any Constitutional provision that authorizes entities that are in some quantum superposition, such that we only see some probabilistic sense of what it is each time we poke at some little aspect of it. I'm kind of liking the hypothetical I just came up with over here. There, I focused on the bureaucratic history, because that's what the other commenter thought it was. Here, I'll focus on the quantum superposition nature.
Let's say they just stand up a Price Force; no bureaucratic history needed; it's from whole cloth. One might ask whether it's authorized by the Constitution. "Wait! Is that an Army, which is Constitutionally authorized... or a Navy, which is constitutionally authorized... or something else, which might not be Constitutionally authorized?" I would probably not buy claims that it doesn't matter, that you don't need to decide, that it's some magical quantum superposition just because we say so. That we can obviously fund it, that it's obviously authorized, and that the President obviously counts as the Commander in Chief of the Price Force, since those all apply to both the Army and the Navy. That perhaps the only consideration is whether or not the Price Force has equipment that needs to be maintained. So, uh, I guess if the Price Force decides they need big supercomputers that need maintained, then they're a "Navy" and a "naval Force" and don't have a 2 year funding limit (and otherwise have to abide by the various Navy clauses instead of the Army clauses)... but if they don't (or we decide to not talk about them), then they're an "Army" and a "land Force"?
But wait! Doesn't the Army have big supercomputers!? Don't they, uh, have equipment that needs to be maintained? Has the Army been a "Navy" and a "naval Force" all along? Did we just not notice? We just didn't poke the quantum superposition right or at the right time or something? Or is it that if we just don't talk about the equipment that the Army needs to maintain hard enough, it can stay an "Army" and a "land Force"?
I still don't see why that applies, and I'm being earnest here. What about the "stochastic parrot" framing keys the average person into the fact that they're good at code and bad at poetry? That is more to do with mode collapse and the downsides of RLHF than it is to do with lacking "consciousness". Like, even on this forum, we have no shortage of users who are great at coding but can't write a poem to save their lives, what does that say about their consciousness? Are parrots known to be good at Ruby-on-rails but fail at poetry?
My explanation of temperature is, at the very least, meant as a high level explainer. It doesn't come up in normal conversation. Context windows? They're so large now that it's not something that is worth mentioning except in passing?
My point is that the parrot metaphor adds nothing. It is, at best, irrelevant, when it comes to all the additional explainers you need to give to normies.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
I'm just asking about how you think Constitutional terms work. AFAICT, your position is that the way the Constitutional terms work is that one simply looks at the history of bureaucratic organization. This seems somewhat foreign to the way we normally interpret Constitutional terms.
For example, suppose there was some bureaucratic convenience reason for just reducing the Navy down to a single frigate. Then, they began expanding the Army's fleet of ships, subs, etc. and their set of maritime missions. Eventually, the expanded set looks kiiiiiiiinda like what the Navy used to do.1 Is it all "Army and land Forces"? Vice-versa, and we get all "Navy and naval Forces"? If they decide the Air Force should really start controlling carriers, because they're more important to the planes these days, and then, meh, let's just give 'em the rest of the boats, too... is the Air Force still an "Army and land Force"? After all, that's what it was originally called. Maybe we just have the Army and Navy just completely swap everything about them except their organizational history; they're the same entities, but they're now doing everything that the other one used to do.
Essentially, can the government sort of trivially change what Constitutional labels/authorizations/rules apply by merely bureaucratically renaming things/growing them out of some historical organization? This would make all sorts of Constitutional provisions (constraints) much easier to deal with, from a gov-maxxing perspective.
Say, the Army probably has some folks who work on the economics of a place. Like, say you're occupying Iraq; they want to understand the economic situation and implement policies for various reasons. Let's just grow that. Maybe stand it up as its own Force. Maybe call it the Price Force, with the mission to control prices globally. Of course, this may have some incidental domestic component to the mission, as these things are all linked. Is the Price Force an "Army" and a "land Force"? Is it properly authorized by the Constitution, since it grew up inside of the Army historically? What if we instead happened to grow the Price Force out of a group of economists at the Navy, since it seemed like those guys were actually better at it than the Army guys at whatever point in time? Is the Price Force then a "Navy" and a "naval Force"?
1 - Not quite PLA/PLAN, but hilarious.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1hr ago
I would, if I felt like I gained anything out of it. As it is, the previous thread has only contributed to early hair loss. You still haven't noted any of the clear and correct objections I've raised, and I'm tired of asking.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1hr ago
Thanks for verifying the answer! If there's a takeaway here, I'm not sure why you're ?paying for Grok 4. Grok 3 was genuinely impressive, and somewhat noticeably better than the competition at launch. Not the case here I'm afraid.
With that aside, I'm not sure how other people see LLMs tackling problems of this complexity and then claim they're not reasoning. It bemuses me.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
1hr ago
You are free to ping me if you like. You know that right?
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
2hr ago
IF I am wrong as you so confidently claim I am, perhaps you should explain to @self_made_human that Claude, Gemini, Deepseek, Et All have none of the capabilities he claims they have. After all, if all the LLM is doing is predict the next most likely word, how do you get a chess engine or python script out of that? It's almost as if there must be some intermediate layer in between.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
2hr ago
The American response was allegedly that Iran would be next.
Assuming that the purpose of a system is what it does, and liberally applying Occan's and Hanlon's razors, the best explanation of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy was that the US Deep State and Republican-aligned elites wanted to invade Iraq in order to replace Saddam with a government that would allow the US to attack Iran from Iraqi territory, and that 9-11 provided political cover. They obviously failed, but they could have succeeded if 9-11 hadn't made it politically unacceptable to include Al-Quaeda in an anti-Iranian coalition.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
2hr ago
The US was not particularly pro Israel until Lyndon Johnson, who let himself get bossed around by his very pro-Israel foreign policy guys.
Also because Israel's leading enemies (at that point they were Egypt and Syria) had recently declared for the Soviet side in the Cold War. The reason why the US Deep State allowed the Israeli lobby in in the first place was mostly Cold War politics.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
2hr ago
What does the US get by sending money to Egypt ?
It gets them to make nice to Israel. The reason why Egypt is the second-largest recipient of US aid is the same reason that Israel is the largest recipient of US aid - the Israel lobby wants it that way.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
2hr ago
States aren't allowed to engage in treaties or establish their own taxes on goods entering or leaving the country.
Yes, but they are allowed to choose how to spend their own money. State governments have the same right not to trade with Israel if they don't want to that you or I do.
Per the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS, the right not to do business you don't want to do can be revoked by explicit legislation, but there is no such legislation in this case. In a comedic prequel to the Obamacare litigation, there used to be a law (adopted in response to the Arab boycott of Israel) mandating large multinational companies do business with Israel. Naturally, the mandate was phrased as a tax.
benny
2hr ago
I'm absolutely in favor of doing things and not just being. It's more about a shift in mentality. I think beating yourself up about not getting things done is long-term harmful. A real break would maybe get you out of the cycle.
Maybe I should've added that one has to try to adopt a new mentality: "Getting Things Done by Being Friendly to Yourself" instead of having the self-criticism angle and then when the regular self-criticism doesn't work, one just dials it up to 11, because that's the whip that always worked. Self-love and all those terms are not terms certain kind of people will accept, but maybe "being friendly to oneself" works for you.
I get shit done after this ongoing transformation and I worked on my most ambitious software architecture so far the last quarter and I only use the whip less than 20% of the time.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
3hr ago
What can one learn about how to get away with serious crimes from this?
Very little. This isn't about a man getting away with serious crimes, it is about the fact that elites don't consider sexual abuse of chavettes a serious crime. It's a nothingburger when well-connected celebrities do it, it's a nothingburger when Mirpuri Pakistani gangs do it, and it's a nothingburger when Mum's new boyfriend does it.
After the Acosta plea deal and Epstein's "release" from "jail", he returned to being a star of the Manhattan social scene despite everyone knowing he was a sex offender. Nobody who mattered cared - apparently Neri Oxman's female graduate students were upset at being drafted into being part of a dog-and-pony show being put on for Epstein as a major donor to the MIT media lab, but Oxman's boss expected her to shut them up with the normal tools used by senior academics to discipline junior ones, and she did.
Late to the party I started
Fashionably late, I would say.
but spending money to incentivize a change in outcomes in my opinion is categorically different then legally enforcing those outcomes
I'm only relying on the example of "DEI" provided in your original comment. Unless DEI encapsulates "spending money to incentivise a change in outcomes" (in a discriminatory way I might add), why would you include "Women-owned businesses" as an example of a DEI initiative? Is there a law mandating that women-owned businesses must be X% of businesses? AFAIK most of the benefits women-owned businesses receive include preferential access to funding and grants and so on, not an explicit mandate that women-owned businesses must be 50% of the businesses in a given field.
Unless that actually exists and the situation is even more ridiculous than I initially thought (I seriously hope this is not the case but won’t rule it out), or unless your opinion is that it must be in the legislation, which seems overly pedantic as to how the incentive should be implemented, I find the statement you've made here to be in conflict with your previous ones.
the former is not strictly DEI imo, whereas the latter is.
I would think they are both DEI due to their shared objective of achieving representation for "marginalised groups" and that most people would consider them such. DEI isn't defined by a hyperspecific set of actions so much as it is by a loose set of objectives IMO.
But to paint it is as DEI is imo aggressively retroactive because the west has a century of history of programs that attempt to bring about positive social change through funding, but the phrase DEI only recently came into the lexicon.
This reasoning is quite odd, to say the least. The concept of social programs is an old one, however that doesn't mean that the word "DEI" can't be used to refer to a set of (largely discriminatory) social programs that attempt to bring about social change through funding based on a specific ideological outlook, within a certain cultural context. Just because something can be defined as part of a broader phenomenon does not mean it can't also be specifically singled out for its peculiarities.
And even if DEI-like things existed before the term was coined, I don't necessarily think a term being retroactively applicable inherently makes it invalid. If that was so, a large swath of terms used within scholarship to define systems of social organisation that have been around since forever would need to be thrown out.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
3hr ago
I have frequently taken vacations from this hobby, and come back to it. Sometimes it's a few days, sometimes a few months. But I always come back. In any case, I want to do this. I just want to regain the productivity I used to have (granted, in a more accessible environment and with me having much more time for it) so that I can sit down for a session, implement an idea, and see it bear out, at a more predictable pace than right now. This entire aspect of my life is "optional" only in so far as having a family or a job is optional. Yes I could abandon it, but I'd just end up obsessing over it again sooner or later.
Maybe I need to age into some more wisdom before I can accept your advice, but right now I'm philosophically of the opinion that being a human is cheap. In all ways that matter, you are what you do. We're human doings, not human beings.
benny
3hr ago
Would it maybe be an idea to take a vacation from this hobby? I'm a pretty regular reader here and I don't think it's psychologically healthy to always be so critical of oneself about the progress one is having in an optional aspect of their life. I struggle with this myself, which is why I play the old wise man now. As Oliver Burkeman says: You don't have to think about it in terms of productivity debt that you have to pay off to be considered a human being. You are one.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3hr ago
Sure there was still a role for cavalry as mounted dragoons or scouts in WW1 and WW2 but real European doctrine was theorizing actual cavalry charges with lances and sabers.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
3hr ago
You're telling me that I am wrong and that I am ignorant, but what I'm describing is the core functionality of both DeepSeek and Google's flagship products. As I recall you are all in in on Deepseek. Do you actually read and understand any of the technical material they publish or the subsequent commentary there on? or are you a mere "think piece" writer?
georgioz
3hr ago
In elementary school grammar classes, students are admonished for saying things like “Me and Tim played baseball yesterday”.
I always thought about it in a way that if the sentence makes sense with just one person, then I should use I. For instance: I went to school yesterday means that I should use My brother and I went to school yesterday. But when the original sentence makes sense with "me" I should also copy it. E.g: My mother gave me a cookie changes into My mother gave a cookie to me and my brother. I am not sure if this is correct, but that is what I use as a heuristic.
The hypercorrection makes sense, except given how English language forms it means it will actually be acceptable very soon. Similarly to how literally/metaphorically are now basically synonyms, except when they are not.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
4hr ago
Do you mean everyone trying to implement age verification on their platforms and in their countries all of a sudden?
Downvoted and AAQC’d.
You have raped my eyeballs and will be hearing from my lawyers shortly.
More options
Context Copy link