Oh… someone asked why I haven't posted anything about the new release of the flagship open source OS.

Honestly… corporate scheming has me neck-deep in a proprietary codebase, powered by sprawling socio-technical machinations.

I haven't written a single line of the nefarious source myself, but I've become implicated in the routine deployment of closed-format executables.

So forgive the silence this time.

Cautious commentators say AI might amplify existing societal biases. Yes, that might be true. But what about history-washing, or any other kind of "-washing" you care to name?

I'm interested in business history and have read a few Wikipedia articles. So I thought I would ask a commercial LLM for a quick overview of the history of a US company called IBM.

The app promptly gave me a neat, decade-by-decade summary. To my surprise, it looked odd; the "history" was entirely devoid of Edwin Black's findings on the strategic alliance of IBM's European subsidiaries with genocidal regimes in the 1930s.

All of this is well known and even IBM's Wikipedia article cites Black (2001) extensively. So why was none of this mentioned, and why did I get a selective highlight of IBM's involvement in the US government and military?

Beyond the technical challenges (or the enormous water and energy consumption), should the training and filtering mechanisms of LLMs not be open to scrutiny?

Andy HΞ3 reshared this.

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

I knew #cats could have their blood pressure taken, but it only just occurred me today to look up photos of it, and they are even better than I imagined.

Not only do they have tiny blood pressure cuffs, they can take their pressure either on their legs or on their TAILS‽

#cats
This entry was edited (Thursday, 7 August 2025, 21:23)

Andy HΞ3 reshared this.

The acting workshop I'd organised was intense, with exercises focused on the mismatch between displayed emotions and those actually felt... and the potential dangers of that disconnect.

After the workshop, one aspiring superstar sent me a message with technical questions. Normally, I'd reply straight away, but for some reason, I didn't respond at all.

The next day, I saw her and apologised. She turned towards me, straightened, and opened her arm slightly, palms visible, smiling. In one fluid motion, her body preceded her calm, hushed words: "I'm so angry with you..." she said, her smile lingering as she tilted her head just so.

I was stumped for a moment, then replied, "I gather you've found the answer to your excellent question."

Later, reflecting on the incident, I realised how I'd dismissed her question, only to be proven wrong about her talent. There's real value in the benefit of doubt.