MacNCheezus

Yes, I understand that. But I'm fairly certain the quality of the data will still have a massive influence over how much and how egregiously that happens.

Basically, what I'm saying is, training your AI on a corpus on shitposts instead of factual information seems like a good way to increase the frequency and magnitude of such hallucinations.

That's a good point, but perhaps it's because that sort of reporting simply isn't very popular?

A lot of people seem to prefer simply hating the rich, which is easy to do because it doesn't require empathizing with their problems. And they certainly DO also have problems because having a lot of money places a huge burden of responsibility on someone's head (that's why so many lottery winners tend to get rid of it so quickly).

And it's not enough to simply put the money in a bank account and live off the interest, because rates might change, your bank might fail (and deposits over a quarter million are generally not covered by the FDIC), or inflation might outgrow the rate of return. The truth is, there's constant pressure to find some way to turn a profit on your capital, but that generally requires taking a risk, and boom, there's a new source of anxiety for ya.

I studied econ as a minor and I don't recall any of my professors ever making the pretense that it was some sort of ultimate or incontrovertible truth. In fact, I'm fairly certain that's where I learned the expression "all models are wrong, but some are useful".

You know, that's actually a valid concern, because just as excessive poverty tends to create many problems, so does excessive wealth. Just look at how many lottery winners end up just as poor as they started within a very short time period because they're not used to having that much money. Also, there's being worried about taxes, theft, or just plain jealousy from others.

Money might be able to solve some of your problems, but it will never solve all of them.

Let me show you my other ride...

cough quantum physics cough

Well yes, I've seen those examples of ChatGPT citing scientific research papers that turned out to be completely made up, but at least it seems to be a step up from straight up shitposting, which is what you get when you train it on a dataset full of shitposts.

Tell me again that Swift isn't an asset of the deep state.

Sure, the AI is never going to understand what it's doing or why, but training it on better datasets certain WILL improve the results.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I was gonna say, just make a commit changing the license to something else, like MIT?

Now this guy is paying attention!

Could it be that economics is more of a social science than a physical one, and therefore its "laws" cannot be expected to have the same level of stringency and consistency as the laws of physics?

No, it's economics that's wrong.