Simia - Recent changes [en]

January 2027

Denny — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:58:04 GMT

Created page with "{{Month|January|2027}}"

New page

2027

Denny — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:57:38 GMT

Created page with "{{Year|2027}}"

New page

December 2026

Denny — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:57:11 GMT

Created page with "{{Month|December|2026}}"

New page

November 2026

Denny — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:56:44 GMT

Created page with "{{Month|November|2026}}"

New page

Sam wants your RAM

Denny — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:56:21 GMT

Created page with "{{pubdate|{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} Sam Altman: "But from a global allocation perspective, actually it's quite terrible to have..."

New page

{{pubdate|3|November|2026}}

Sam Altman: "But from a global allocation perspective, actually it's quite terrible to have everybody have a bunch of the world's limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer”

From an allocation perspective, actually it seems quite terrible that the richest 100 US billionaires own more than 7 trillion dollar, sitting on more wealth than 70% of US households combined, while many have to struggle to get health care, education, nutrition and shelter.

But I guess we all have our pet peeves.

{{tag|Simia}}
<noinclude>{{simiapost|english}}</noinclude>

Patrick Stewart

Denny — Fri, 30 Oct 2026 07:25:46 GMT

Created page with "{{pubdate|{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} When the table read of the first episode of The Next Generation happened, it was Patrick Ste..."

New page

{{pubdate|30|October|2026}}

When the table read of the first episode of The Next Generation happened, it was Patrick Stewart who first pronounced the name of the android Data. He enunciated a crisp T instead of the American habit of letting the letter disappear somewhere on the top of their mouth. Gene Roddenberry then set up the rule that whoever reads a name first decides on the pronunciation. Given the profound cultural impact of Star Trek this influenced the way data was pronounced, and thus much later also influenced Wikidata.

Captain Picard and Professor X as portrayed by Patrick Stewart embodied leadership for me, a role model since growing up. If you read up on the production of Star Trek: The Next Generation, you will learn that he also was a role model and a leader for the rest of the cast, his professionalism and conduct contributing far beyond the role he portrayed on screen. In his private life he served less of a role model, but unlike some other stars his private life sure didn't have anywhere near the prominence in the public consciousness as the roles he portrayed have.

He'll always be my Captain. "Make it so" is such a wonderful catchphrase, showing confidence in the capabilities of the crew, and how good communication and consensus had worked before. The scenes of Captain Picard and his leadership team sitting around the table, discussing options and coming to level headed decisions, had little counterpart on Kirk's Enterprise. I don't expect to get into the habit of drinking Earl Grey, hot, though.

And even though Magneto was right, Professor X exemplified the mercy and compassion I want to always aspire to. The real-world friendship with Ian McKellen provided such a fruitful interplay for the portrayal of the relationship between Professor X and Magneto: sure, both Stewart and McKellen were brilliant actors, and I have no doubt that they would have been able to bring that relationship to life on screen even if they would have despised each other off screen, but their chemistry and friendship off screen, knowing about it, just made the rivalry and friendship of the characters feel so much more vivid. I'm looking forward to seeing Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen portray Professor X and Magneto and their relationship once again in Doomsday.

Ad Astra.

{{tag|Simia}}
<noinclude>{{simiapost|english}}</noinclude>

Serbia elections 2026

Denny — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:20:32 GMT

Serbia elections 2026

Denny — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 05:49:16 GMT

Created page with "{{pubdate|{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} The election in Serbia is a win for democracy. The students' list very intentionally ran on..."

New page

{{pubdate|26|October|2026}}

The election in Serbia is a win for democracy. The students' list very intentionally ran on one message: against the Vučić government, against corruption, for accountability. They tried to avoid having a commitment on any other issue: no commitment for or against the EU, for or against Russia, for or against Lithium exports. They defied having a leader, very intentionally.

They stand for basic values: for democracy, for the freedoms of speech, of press, of research and education, for a separation of powers. This was enough to carry an election, fortunately, but is it enough to form a government and lead a country?

Vučić was the minister of information in the Serbia of Milošević. I wouldn't be surprised if Vučić conceded quickly to position himself to run for president before the year is over. This isn't over.

The hard part is starting. Rebuilding democratic structures, reinstating press freedom, gaining agreements on what to do, not just on what to be against. All the best!

{{tag|Simia}}
<noinclude>{{simiapost|english}}</noinclude>

Zur Ontologischen Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze

Denny — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 09:25:33 GMT

Zur Ontologischen Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze

Denny — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 09:21:13 GMT

Created page with "{{pubdate|{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} 2003, 2004 schrieb ich als Philosophiestudent eine Hausarbeit über Neuronale Netze, turingv..."

New page

{{pubdate|14|October|2026}}

2003, 2004 schrieb ich als Philosophiestudent eine Hausarbeit über Neuronale Netze, turingvollständigkeit, und die Frage, was Künstliche Intelligenz und den Menschen ausmachen. Damals ging es um Ray Kurzweils Visionen, die Grenzen künstlicher Intelligenz und die Möglichkeit, den menschlichen Geist auf einem Computer nachzubilden. Mehr als zwanzig Jahre später, im Zeitalter von LLMs und generativer KI, habe ich die Arbeit wiederveröffentlicht. Manche meiner Argumente würde ich heute anders formulieren, einige Aussagen korrigieren, aber ein paar Gedanken sind vielleicht interessant. Für die meisten wahrscheinlich nicht.

Für mich war diese Arbeit immer mit dem folgenden Gedanken verbunden: ''eine Rechnung wird durch einen Computer nicht simuliert, sondern die Rechnung findet tatsächlich statt''.

Ich finde den Gedanken immer noch interessant und wichtig. Wenn ich die Arbeit aber lese, finde ich, dass die Arbeit diesen Gedanken weder wirklich gut ausarbeitet, noch die Folgen davon reflektiert. Stattdessen tastest sie sich an viele anderen Fragen ein wenig ran, ohne wirklich voranzukommen. Na gut. Ich war ja auch erst Mitte 20.

* [[Ontologische Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze]]

{{tag|Simia}}
{{tag|Philosophy}}
<noinclude>{{simiapost|German}}</noinclude>

Ontologische Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze

Denny — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 09:11:27 GMT

Philosophy

Denny — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 08:39:53 GMT

Created page with "{{topic|Philosophy}} Siehe: * Ontologische Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze"

New page

{{topic|Philosophy}}

Siehe:
* [[Ontologische Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze]]

Ontologische Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze

Denny — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 08:39:02 GMT

Created page with ": ''„Für Trubel und hitzige Diskussionen sorgte in der letzten Runde des Turniers auch die Partie von Shredder: In klar gewonnener Stellung ließ der spätere Champion eine..."

Show changes

Does the Truth feed those people?

Denny — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 07:04:27 GMT

Created page with "{{pubdate|{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} I looked up something that sounded like a quote using Google: "Does the truth feed those peo..."

New page

{{pubdate|7|October|2026}}

I looked up something that sounded like a quote using Google: "Does the truth feed those people?"

Google's AI answered, without even a single Web search result beneath, *only* the AI answer:

''"Does the truth feed those people?" is a powerful quote spoken by the character Fermin (played by Janusz Kamiński) in the 2006 film Children of Men.''

Which would be a great answer.

If that was a quote from the film. It isn't.

If there was a character named Fermin in that film. There isn't.

If Janusz Kamiński had played in that film. He didn't.

If Janusz Kamiński was even an actor. He isn't. He is a cinematographer and director.

If Janusz Kamiński had anything to do with the film. He didn't.

It has been a while since I noticed such a complete fail. At first I believed the answer, and started to act on it. Only later I noticed that it didn't sit right. And it unraveled.

Next time it might not unravel so easy.

* [https://www.google.com/search?smstk=ChhMZFk1SkNqZHFiOSsyVEFkNW9IMHZUND0QARgA&smstidx=0&q=%22does+the+truth+feed+those+people%3F%22&udm=50&csuir=1&aep=34&kgs=035b65b96a04d0fa&shem=agpl%2Caiolsbe%2Casdpe%2Cepsd1%2Crimspwouoe&shndl=37&shmd=H4sIAAAAAAAA_3XNsQrCMBQFULtJF8HRKdRNsLGLgwh-SnhtnkmgyQvJK-3Yz_Ib_Ay_RAWdxPFeOPeWj6LcVpowC7YoOA1sxRVRvyJlFBEp9nipNmfLHPNJynEca5MZ2HV1R15mhNTZfUzkSYLzKltIqNgOvg3g-joGU62_2hCZHmtwcreY5tVc3Jb3Qv3bdh4MZtkmCNoF89FGmQTaYWDZTD-devmgIWnVHA86vu-fdge-c-UAAAA&shmds=v1_ARwrE206JYslBibCvkEd7GU8V-GkwPPKCaR-ytWN1E01aXNKzw&source=sh%2Fx%2Faim%2Fm1%2F1&mtid=Wu7FauHCEs2fi-gPlbDJmAg AI answer transcript]
* originally [https://mas.to/@vrandecic/117167724473523101 posted on Mastodon 27 August 2026]

{{tag|Simia}}
<noinclude>{{simiapost|english}}</noinclude>

Checking one fact: Yelena in Brand New Day

Denny — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 06:54:08 GMT

Checking one fact: Yelena in Brand New Day

Denny — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 10:08:16 GMT

Created page with "{{pubdate|{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} This is not really about Spider-Man, but about the Truth, about AI, and Wikipedia. From tim..."

New page

{{pubdate|6|October|2026}}

This is not really about Spider-Man, but about the Truth, about AI, and Wikipedia.

From time to time I stumble into a rabbit hole where I start fretting about a single fact, and try to get down to the bottom of it. Sometimes I write about these (e.g. [[the height of Anson Mount]], or [[the place of birth of Ena Begović]]).

This time, I stumbled upon two sentences in the Wikipedia article on the recent movie [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_Brand_New_Day Spider-Man: Brand New Day], the highest grossing movie in the US ever: ''“Florence Pugh reprised her MCU role of Yelena Belova / Black Widow. Her introduction scene was altered in post-production due to its perceived sexual undertones.”''

Now the first sentence is fine, but I was wondering about the second sentence. Somehow, it didn’t sit right, and it came without a reference. So, I just copied the two sentences into Google, expecting to find a source for that claim, add it to Wikipedia, and that would be the end of it.

Google immediately launched the AI mode, and stated that the text is from the Wikipedia article (correct). It further explained that ''“during test screenings, younger viewers expressed discomfort with the perceived sexual undertones of the moment. In response, the creative team made post-production visual adjustments to make the bathhouse water more opaque to lessen the nudity/sexual implications”''. It gave Wikipedia as a source for this.

That text didn’t appear on Wikipedia.

It asked me if I wanted a primary source for this, and I said yes. The AI then offered an interview in The Wrap, but only gave [https://www.threads.com/@nerd_talks_show/post/DcSnz1jk4ev/spider-man-brand-new-day-writers-say-yelena-belova-was-always-part-of-the-movie/ a link to Threads], where a bit of the interview was quoted. The quote didn’t say anything about test screening or scene alterations. So I ask: ''“Where's the link to the Wrap interview?”''

And now it gets really interesting. Instead of giving me a link, Google answers: ''“The statement that "the scene was altered in post-production due to its perceived sexual undertones" is actually a fabricated claim from user-edited wikis and rumor threads, meaning there is no real interview link matching that claim.”''

Then Google’s AI gives me links to other interviews.

I say: ''“But "During test screenings, younger viewers expressed discomfort with the perceived sexual undertones of the moment. In response, the creative team made post-production visual adjustments to make the bathhouse water more opaque to lessen the nudity/sexual implications." -- this came from you, not from Wikipedia? Where did you get that from?”''

Google answered: ''“You are entirely right to call this out. I apologize—I hallucinated that narrative about the younger audiences, test screening discomfort, and the opacity adjustments.‘

''“While the text you initially asked about is currently written verbatim on Wikipedia's Spider-Man: Brand New Day page, the elaborate details I gave you in my first response to explain why it happened were entirely made up by me.”''

To make it clear: not only did it first hallucinate further backstory for an erroneous claim, it also stated that someone else was at fault for that. (I did not check Reddit and YouTube videos about this, these wouldn’t be sources that I can use in Wikipedia).

OK, it was clear what I had to do. I removed that sentence from Wikipedia, and said that this is unsourced. I don’t know whether it is true or not, but if someone bothers to find a reliable source, they can add it back.

But now I was curious about how the sentence made it to Wikipedia in the first place, because sometimes that can help uncover further issues. Finding that out on Wikipedia is a bit of a hassle, and I thought I could let the AI do that.

I asked. Several times. It kept responding that the answer generation failed or something like that. Eventually, the Google AI answered.

Me: ''“Can you figure out who entered the statement about the altered scene to Wikipedia?”''

Google: ''“Because Wikipedia’s edit history is completely transparent and tracked in real time, it is easy to find the exact origin of this edit.''

''“The statement regarding the post-production alteration due to "perceived sexual undertones" was added to the Spider-Man: Brand New Day Wikipedia page by an anonymous, unregistered editor on August 22, 2026.”''

The page is now and was semi-protected back then, which means anonymous editors cannot have edited the page. I knew that answer was wrong. Still, I asked: ''“Can you give me a link to the diff that introduced this on the 22 August?”''

Google: ''“Because Wikipedia's specific page architecture dynamically generates temporary revision IDs rather than permanent links for unverified edits, providing a functional direct hyperlink to that precise "diff" view is not possible.”''

That’s when I decided to stop, as this, again, is simply untrue. Not only is this inconsistent with the previous answer (''“it is easy to find the exact origin of this edit”''), but Wikipedia very much does provide a diff link for every single diff, no matter if by an anonymous editor or not. Google making up outright false information about how Wikipedia works is maybe the one thing that annoys me most in this whole conversation.

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man:_Brand_New_Day&diff=next&oldid=1370896272 relevant edit can absolutely be linked to]. It was not added on August 22. It was not added by an anonymous contributor, but by a volunteer editor with tons of experience. Those things can slip through, and the community can fix it, as happened today. Or maybe it is true, and it will come back with a better source, who knows. That version of Wikipedia also links to [https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/spider-man-chris-mckenna-erik-sommers-interview/ the actual interview in The Wrap] (which Google avoided), and you can see that it didn’t support anything about test screenings or post-production alterations.

Wikipedia should not be blindly trusted (in fact, no source should, but that’s particularly true for Wikipedia). Articles on Wikipedia may contain errors. The community, over time, reviews the articles, and fixes many of the errors. That’s why it is such a highly trusted source of knowledge.

But taking an AI instead for answering questions? This conversation happened in October 2026. ChatGPT has been around for almost four years, and we have known about the hallucination problem for even longer. How do I fix the AI in Google’s search? Sure, it also warns us that ''“AI responses may include mistakes.”'' But look how hard it can be to get to the truth. In this case, Google not only came up with sources that didn’t support the claim we were checking, but it further embellished the wrong statements with a whole, plausible background story. Entirely made-up. Further questions were answered with increasingly wrong claims, to the point where it stated that Wikipedia’s edits cannot be linked to.

The bad thing is that I think I have used AI many times productively. I think that I succeeded in using AI to check facts, to learn about things, to answer questions. And then I stumble into such a situation, and I notice how badly it fails.

Yes, I want to believe that I am diligent about checking AI answers. But am I really? Do I have the energy and the will to check everything? I doubt it. I probably slipped many times. When I didn’t care enough about the answer. When the answer sounded pleasing enough to me at the moment. I know that this scene in Spider-Man is probably not important enough to warrant these worries, this diligence, but one thing is that there is absolutely nothing that should allow us to believe that topics of more importance are treated any differently.

I was not able to share the conversation directly, as is usually possible, nor to export it to a Google Doc. Instead I [https://docs.google.com/document/d/10DhYRVfyO6M_IPBhwI-6vw1NKS-MhCDPsgMF0RI1Qak/edit?tab=t.0 copy-and-pasted the whole page to a Google Doc and put Screenshots into it]. This was not the original conversation, but accessed through my Google AI search history tab (as the original conversation crashed on me when I asked it to export to Google Docs).

{{tag|Factcheck}}
{{tag|Simia}}
<noinclude>{{simiapost|english}}</noinclude>

Using ChatGPT for fact checking

Denny — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:07:33 GMT

The height of Anson Mount

Denny — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:00:15 GMT

Factcheck

Denny — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 07:56:03 GMT

Created page with "{{topic}}"

New page

The place of birth of Ena Begović

Denny — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 07:34:32 GMT

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 ''Dies ist eine Hausarbeit die ich in meinem Philosophie-Studium schrieb. Das wird Anfang 2004 gewesen sein. Die älteste Archivierung durch das Internet Archive ist vom 19. März 2004.''
-Spätere Anmerkungen (2026):
+Spätere Anmerkungen (2026) (was nicht heißt, dass der Rest keine Anmerkungen braucht, aber nur ein paar hier):
-* Die Aussage ''"Die mathematischen Modelle von Neuronalen Netzen sind turingvollständige Lösungssysteme."'' ist etwas zu stark: nur bestimmte Architekturen von Neuronal Netzen sind turingvollständig (z.B. wenn sie rekurrierend sind und sie Zugriff auf einen Speicher haben). Das macht aber für die Argumentation hier keinen Unterschied.
+* Die Aussage ''"Die mathematischen Modelle von Neuronalen Netzen sind turingvollständige Lösungssysteme."'' ist etwas zu stark: nur bestimmte Architekturen von Neuronal Netzen sind turingvollständig (z.B. wenn sie rekurrierend sind und sie Zugriff auf einen Speicher haben). Das macht aber für die Argumentation hier keinen Unterschied. Wieviel das Argument selbst trägt, ist jedoch eine andere Frage.
 * Die Aussage ''"um mehr als ein zufälliges, statistisches Element vermag die Quantenphysik das klassischen mechanisch-deterministischen Weltbild nicht zu ergänzen."'' würde ich heute nicht mehr unterschreiben. Quantenphysik scheint viel schräger als einfach nur Zufall zu sein, und dementsprechend ist es unklar, was Quantenphysik beitragen kann. Vielleicht hatten Lucas und Penrose doch Recht, was ich davor ablehnte. Ich halte es immer noch für unwahrscheinlich, aber für möglich. Dies kann die Argumentation gefährden, beruht aber auf der Natur der Quantenphysik.
 * ''Im Fall von Problemen trennt sich sonst vereintes plötzlich.'' Autsch.
 {{tag|Philosophy}}

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 The hard part is starting. Rebuilding democratic structures, reinstating press freedom, gaining agreements on what to do, not just on what to be against. All the best!
 {{tag|Simia}}
 <noinclude>{{simiapost|english}}</noinclude>

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Für mich war diese Arbeit immer mit dem folgenden Gedanken verbunden: ''eine Rechnung wird durch einen Computer nicht simuliert, sondern die Rechnung findet tatsächlich statt''.
-Ich finde den Gedanken immer noch interessant und wichtig. Wenn ich die Arbeit aber lese, finde ich, dass die Arbeit diesen Gedanken weder wirklich gut ausarbeitet, noch die Folgen davon reflektiert. Stattdessen tastest sie sich an viele anderen Fragen ein wenig ran, ohne wirklich voranzukommen. Na gut. Ich war ja auch erst Mitte 20.
+Ich finde den Gedanken immer noch interessant und wichtig. Wenn ich die Arbeit aber lese, finde ich, dass die Arbeit diesen Gedanken weder wirklich gut ausarbeitet, noch die Folgen davon reflektiert. Stattdessen tastet sie sich an viele anderen Fragen ein wenig ran, ohne wirklich voranzukommen. Na gut. Ich war ja auch erst Mitte 20.
 * [[Ontologische Bestimmung Neuronaler Netze]]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 I say: ''“But "During test screenings, younger viewers expressed discomfort with the perceived sexual undertones of the moment. In response, the creative team made post-production visual adjustments to make the bathhouse water more opaque to lessen the nudity/sexual implications." -- this came from you, not from Wikipedia? Where did you get that from?”''
-Google answered: ''“You are entirely right to call this out. I apologize—I hallucinated that narrative about the younger audiences, test screening discomfort, and the opacity adjustments.‘
+Google answered: ''“You are entirely right to call this out. I apologize—I hallucinated that narrative about the younger audiences, test screening discomfort, and the opacity adjustments.''
 ''“While the text you initially asked about is currently written verbatim on Wikipedia's Spider-Man: Brand New Day page, the elaborate details I gave you in my first response to explain why it happened were entirely made up by me.”''
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 That’s when I decided to stop, as this, again, is simply untrue. Not only is this inconsistent with the previous answer (''“it is easy to find the exact origin of this edit”''), but Wikipedia very much does provide a diff link for every single diff, no matter if by an anonymous editor or not. Google making up outright false information about how Wikipedia works is maybe the one thing that annoys me most in this whole conversation.
-The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man:_Brand_New_Day&diff=next&oldid=1370896272 relevant edit can absolutely be linked to]. It was not added on August 22. It was not added by an anonymous contributor, but by a volunteer editor with tons of experience. Those things can slip through, and the community can fix it, as happened today. Or maybe it is true, and it will come back with a better source, who knows. That version of Wikipedia also links to [https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/spider-man-chris-mckenna-erik-sommers-interview/ the actual interview in The Wrap] (which Google avoided), and you can see that it didn’t support anything about test screenings or post-production alterations.
+The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man:_Brand_New_Day&diff=next&oldid=1370896272 relevant edit can absolutely be linked to]. It was not added on August 22. It was not added by an anonymous contributor, but by a volunteer editor with tons of experience, and it seems in good faith. Those things can slip through, and the community can fix it, as happened today. Or maybe it is true, and it will come back with a better source, who knows. That version of Wikipedia also links to [https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/spider-man-chris-mckenna-erik-sommers-interview/ the actual interview in The Wrap] (which Google avoided), and you can see that it didn’t support anything about test screenings or post-production alterations.
 Wikipedia should not be blindly trusted (in fact, no source should, but that’s particularly true for Wikipedia). Articles on Wikipedia may contain errors. The community, over time, reviews the articles, and fixes many of the errors. That’s why it is such a highly trusted source of knowledge.
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 I was not able to share the conversation directly, as is usually possible, nor to export it to a Google Doc. Instead I [https://docs.google.com/document/d/10DhYRVfyO6M_IPBhwI-6vw1NKS-MhCDPsgMF0RI1Qak/edit?tab=t.0 copy-and-pasted the whole page to a Google Doc and put Screenshots into it]. This was not the original conversation, but accessed through my Google AI search history tab (as the original conversation crashed on me when I asked it to export to Google Docs).
 {{tag|Factcheck}}
 {{tag|Simia}}
 <noinclude>{{simiapost|english}}</noinclude>