I think that's more about Wolfram giving a clickbait headline to some dicking around he did in the name of "the ruliad", a revolutionary conceptual innovation of the Wolfram Physics Project that is best studied using the Wolfram Language, brought to you by Wolfram Research.
The full ruliad—which appears at the foundations of physics, mathematics and much more—is the entangled limit of all possible computations. [...] In representing all possible computations, the ruliad—like the “everything machine”—is maximally nondeterministic, so that it in effect includes all possible computational paths.
The more absolutistic philosophers dwell on so high a level of abstraction that they never even try to come down. The absolute mind which they offer us, the mind that makes our universe by thinking it, might, for aught they show us to the contrary, have made any one of a million other universes just as well as this. You can deduce no single actual particular from the notion of it. It is compatible with any state of things whatever being true here below.
The college at which I'm employed, which has signed a contract with the AI firm that stole books from 131 colleagues & me, paid a student to write an op-ed for the student paper promoting AI, guided the writing of it, and did not disclose this to the paper. [...] the student says while the college coached him to write the oped, he was paid by the AI project, which is connected with the college. The student paper’s position is that the college paid him. And there’s no question that college attempted to place a pro-AI op-ed.
We’re getting so many journal submissions from people who think ‘it kinda works’ is the standard to aim for.
Research Notes of the AAS in particular, which was set up to handle short, moderated contributions especially from students, is getting swamped. Often the authors clearly haven’t read what they’ve submitting, (Descriptions of figures that don’t exist or don’t show what they purport to)
I’m also getting wild swings in topic. A rejection of one paper will instantly generate a submission of another, usually on something quite different.
Many of these submissions are dense with equations and pseudo-technological language which makes it hard to give rapid, useful feedback. And when I do give feedback, often I get back whatever their LLM says.
Including the very LLM responses like ‘Oh yes, I see that
<thing that was fundamental to the argument>
is wrong, I’ve removed it. Here’s something else’
Research Notes is free to publish in and I think provides a very valuable service to the community. But I think we’re a month or two from being completely swamped.
He unironically made the postapocalyptic wasteland from the cautionary tale, Mad Max: Do Not Make the Postapocalyptic Wasteland
This is the same pre-emptive irony as naming your brand of New Age crap "Goop", only now with voluntarily plugging yourself into the machine that statistically simulates the ravings of a schizophrenic when it's not generating child pornography, while setting up direct deposit to your dealer of meth, jimsonweed and Substance D
... a member of the Irish parliament (the Dail) who happens to be a barrister (an attorney specialising in advocacy in front of a judge, including criminal prosecution/defense) has formally written to the head of the Irish cybercrime unit setting out applicable charges against X/Grok and sternly requesting formal prosecution of that company on child pornography/trafficking charges.
To:
Detective Superintendent Pat Ryan
Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau
Dear Superintendent,
You will no doubt be aware of the social media company X and its Grok app, which utilises artificial intelligence to generate pictures and videos. I understand you are also aware that, among its capabilities is the generation, by artificial intelligence, of false images of real people either naked or in bikinis, etc. There has been a great deal of controversy recently about the use of this technology and its ability to target people without their knowledge or consent.
Whatever about the sharing of such images being contrary to the provisions of Coco’s Law (sections 2 and 3 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020), the Grok app is also capable of generating child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or child pornography as defined by section 2(1) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (as substituted by section 9(b) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017).
In the circumstances, it seems there are reasonable grounds that the corporate entity X, as owner of Grok, or indeed the corporate entity Grok itself, is acting in contravention of a number of provisions of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (as amended). Inter alia, it is my contention that the following offences are being committed by X, Grok, and/or its subsidiaries:
1. Possession of child pornography contrary to section 6(1) in that the material generated by the Grok app must be stored on servers owned and/or operated by X and with the company’s knowledge, in this jurisdiction or in the European Union [subsections 6(3) and (4) would not apply in this case];
2. Production of child pornography contrary to section 5(1)(a) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that material is being generated by the Grok app, which constitutes child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or child pornography as defined by section 2(1), since it constitutes a visual representation that shows person who is depicted as being a child “being engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit activity” (per paragraph (a)(i) of the definition of child pornography in section 2(1) as amended by section 9(b) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017);
3. Distribution of chiid pornography contrary to section 5(1)(b) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that the said images that constitute child pornography are being distributed, transmitted, disseminated or published to the users of the Grok app by X or its subsidiaries;
4. Distribution of chiid pornography contrary to section 5(1)(c) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that the Child pornography is being sold to the users of the Grok app by X or its subsidiaries, now that the app has been very publically put behind a pay wall;
5. Knowing possession any child pornography for the purpose of distributing, transmitting, disseminating, publishing, exporting, selling or showing same, contrary to section 5(1)(g) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.
You will also be aware that, pursuant to section 9(1) of the 1998 Act, a body corporate is equally liable to be proceeded against and punished as if it were an individual.
Given the foregoing, as well as the public outcry against public decency, it is clear to me that X is flagrantly disregarding the laws of this country put in place by the Oireachtas to protect its citizens.
I am formally lodging this criminal complaint in the anticipation that you will investigate it fully and transmit a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions without delay; I would be grateful to hear from you in this regard.
Tweet exchange in which a photo of Anne Hathaway is posted by @TheRoyalSerf, to which user @VvSchweetz24 replies "@grok...do your thing.
@Grok replies: Anne Hathaway isn't Jewish; she was raised Catholic but left the church. She married Adam Shulman (who is Jewish) in 2012 and celebrates Jewish holidays with their kids. SHe's played Jewish roles, like in "Armageddon Time."
Bluesky user Séamas O'Reilly adds the commentary,
pretty sure he meant the other thing, grok, but very cool that those are your two things
None of these words are in the Star Trek Encyclopedia