mapontosevenths (u/mapontosevenths)

mapontosevenths commented on Frontier AI agents violate ethical constraints 30–50% of time, pressured by KPIs arxiv.org/abs/2512.20798... · Posted by u/tiny-automates

Davidzheng · 13 hours ago

Honestly for research level math, the reasoning level of Gemini 3 is much below GPT 5.2 in my experience--but most of the failure I think is accounted for by Gemini pretending to solve problems it in fact failed to solve, vs GPT 5.2 gracefully saying it failed to prove it in general.

mapontosevenths · 13 hours ago

Have you tried Deep Think? You only get access with the Ultra tier or better... but wow. It's MUCH smarter than GPT 5.2 even on xhigh. It's math skills are a bit scary actually. Although it does tend to think for 20-40 minutes.

mapontosevenths commented on Discord will require a face scan or ID for full access next month theverge.com/tech/875309/... · Posted by u/x01

ikekkdcjkfke · a day ago

I’ll vibe code that sh*t in a sitting

mapontosevenths · a day ago

Seriously, and probably do a better job of it. Electron. Yuck.

The problem isn't the platform, it's getting a critical mass of users. Until everyone is using it, nobody is.

mapontosevenths commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell

AnimalMuppet · a day ago

Maybe? I mean, if I believe that all lives have value, and I'm talking to someone who believes that their peoples' lives are more valuable, then I can go further back. Why do any lives have any value? What's your basis for saying that any life has value? All right, starting from there, can you keep that without also extending it to those who are not part of your group?

Note well that this may not work to persuade them. But you can at least have the conversation.

mapontosevenths · a day ago

> Note well that this may not work to persuade them. But you can at least have the conversation.

It is noble to try. I suspect that you will always fail, unless the other person is uncommonly reasonable. Those views of life are the result of having vastly different experiences and backgrounds, and aren't something that typically changes after reaching adulthood.

mapontosevenths commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell

some_random · a day ago

Look do you think the claim "human life has value" (choosing something uncontroversial that's likely to be a shared foundational belief, feel free to choose something different if you disagree) is a thought terminating cliche? At some point in discourse you will eventually run into foundational beliefs and while they may functionally be terminating thought I think they have to be a different category because they are foundational. It's a first principles thing.

mapontosevenths · a day ago

> It's a first principles thing.

This is fair. You can't really have a good debate with anyone if you don't agree on first principles. It think that's part of the problem with the worlds polarization these days.

We have this fundamental disconnect between 'the greatest good for the most people' on one side and 'the greatest good for MY people' on the other. It's literally two different answer to the question of life having value. IE - "They all have the same value." vs "Some are more valuable than others."

When you have disagreements that fundamental you will never find common ground. The zero-sum view of the universe is fundamentally incompatible with the other view.

The only way to stop it from becoming a thought terminating cliche when it comes up (in it's many forms) is to explicitly call it out as what it is - A fundamental an insolvable disagreement that can only be met with some level of compromise.

mapontosevenths commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell

attila-lendvai · a day ago

conspiracy theory, anyone? :)

mapontosevenths · a day ago

Are you arguing that calling something a conspiracy theory is a thought terminating cliche?

I suppose it could be, but the lizard people tell me it's not.

mapontosevenths commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell

phkahler · a day ago

>> It took me embarrassingly long in my youth to understand that when people said "I don't have time" or "I can't afford to", what they really meant was "I don't want to".

And "I don't want to" often means "I don't want to make the effort, but I would like the outcome if I did."

mapontosevenths · a day ago

I think it really means "I would like to, but the cost is too high." IE - They like the idea of the reward, but the "expense" in terms of opportunity cost is too high.

They just don't think it through to the end when they say it. Or maybe they do, and this is just an easier way to say it?

mapontosevenths commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell

behindsight · a day ago

On a similar vein is the "argument from fallacy" aka fallacist's fallacy. [1]

Essentially if you dismiss someone's argument as false just because it may have had a fallacy within it, that reasoning is itself a fallacy.

Some fallacy-seeking people ironically ignore this and just dismiss anything when they have the "gotcha, you made a fallacy therefore everything you said can be concluded as false" moment.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

mapontosevenths · a day ago

You know, I hadn't even been aware that this was a term until now but I've certainly seen it in the wild many times! Thanks for sharing!

The idea that a single fallacy in a complex chain of reasoning renders the entire chain invalid just makes sense to programmers, who spend most of their time thinking in a step-wise and linear fashion where each output is the input to something else. This sort of "programmer style" thinking has crept into some surprising parts of society these days.

In real life, things are often more nuanced.

mapontosevenths commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell

catapart · a day ago

Personally, I just go for "plateaus of understanding". As a filthy socialist in a deep red area, I never had a chance at convincing people all in one go. So I give them just enough that they'll come back around for another bite at convincing me why I'm wrong. Where I'm from, that mostly looks like waiting on the news cycle to say something bad about a democrat and then letting them bring it up purely to dunk on me, rather than to actually engage with the conversation. So I take the opportunity to redirect the dunk. "Oh, that IS bad. Wow, they really fucked up. Isn't this like how So and So did something similar?" Now they are explaining to me the nuances of difference between the situations. That's what they'll remember later - the arguments THEY made. And when they start comparing that to other things, reason wears them down like it does anyone else.

In effect, you end up getting them to agree with some otherwise unthinkable positions, just one plateau at a time. There's only so much erosion that can take place before they fall back to their own lines of thought termination (like "all I care about is immigration", or whatever). So you end up with a kind of "anchor" that we can both agree on (ex: corporations are fucking us), which still has the hard edge of politics. At that point, all it takes is for the politics to do enough that the hard edges start to erode. But, there's no accounting for that. Just gotta assume the people who are doing wrong will keep proving it (as they historically have been unable to avoid, no matter how hard they try or how long they are successful at it prior).

As you say: life is complicated. I know people will roll their eyes at this answer as much as any other response I could give you. And I know that a political-focused answer isn't directly analogous to many other situations. But, my answer is as simple as I can think to make it. Just meet people where they're meeting you and don't worry about forcing a point.

mapontosevenths · a day ago

> But, there's no accounting for that. Just gotta assume the people who are doing wrong will keep proving it (as they historically have been unable to avoid, no matter how hard they try or how long they are successful at it prior).

“Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.” ― William Hartnell, Doctor Who

mapontosevenths commented on Thought-Terminating Cliché en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho... · Posted by u/walterbell

mapontosevenths · a day ago

There are times in which the term "thought terminating cliche" itself can be the seen as the culprit.

To use an example from the article, if I were to say "Let people enjoy things", and you were to denounce that as a TTC without consideration of my true intent.

In that case you may inadvertently be the one that shuts down the debate prematurely, and I may have actually had a valid perspective.

mapontosevenths commented on The Contagious Taste of Cancer historytoday.com/archive/... · Posted by u/Thevet

delichon · 2 days ago

Samuel Smith appears to have been infected by a fatal meme. I am obnoxiously in favor of free speech, but I can't deny ideas can kill in more ways than Chuck Norris.

mapontosevenths · 2 days ago

It is also possible that he was bound for his deathbed regardless, and confused correlation and causation here. Perhaps his desire to taste other people's cancer was an early symptom of some mental decline that had already started?

Doctors of that era, especially those who weren't too keen on hygiene, probably did not have exceptionally great life-spans.