I speculate that there's a profitable exchange at the heart of LLMs. Questions asked, which may be widely applicable, are more valuable than answers given, which will tend to be specifically applicable. Do LLM execs even think in these abstract terms? They may be preoccupied by operational concerns.

This is true. But let's assume for the sake of argument, that the people driving LLM development do know it isn't a step on the road to AGI (it isn't!) and do know that they won't be able to monetise it easily (they won't!). Either, they're looking for a fast exit, or, they have some other agenda.

Right now, it's not obvious how to monetise LLMs—each interaction costs providers more than you pay them.

But in terms of information, you're giving them more than they're giving you. Your precise description of the problem is ultimately more valuable than the solution.

2/2

cc. @edzitron.com

And, worse, they do so at the behest of their ultra-rich owners, who understand how a misinformed, confused populace can be used to advance their corrupt, hierarchical, authoritarian political agenda.

Correct. It's not about news anymore it's about stirring up emotions and particularly those that are fuelled by xenophobia and intolerance.

I'm almost speechless, the media's wild speculation pre the actual budget speech has proved to be wrong. Rather than apologise or just shut up and move on they've somehow convinced themselves Reeves is a liar. More worryingly there are people who believe this guff.

Sorry not to be clear—try reading that awkward dot (no spaces) as a dash. "There's something else going on—".

…How exciting! It's almost as if we've discovered how conversation works! Well done us!!

That's true, but there's something else going on as well.The context of marketing incentivises the production of podcasts with wide appeal. Don't underestimate how this context shapes content producers' behaviour patterns. Even just characterising these people's produce as "content" does something.

ALT text:

Hand-drawn cartoon of Donald Trump, with epaulettes and military medals over his characteristic blue suit and red tie. Scowling, he rants, "IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISOBEY MY ILLEGAL ORDERS"

Culture, I propose, is starting to cast humans as cogs in a machine that's beyond their understanding, ants in a nest that's out of control, neurons in a greater and imperceptible thinking system. 3/3

But listeners themselves often internalise this—listening to what they think their friends will like, not what they like; assuming that the niche, the quirky, the outlying can't be of interest because it isn't of interest to a mass. Interestingly, this echoes the triangulating logic of LLMs. 2/3

I find that there's a kind of herd logic emerging in podcasts, just as there is in TV productions, books, games, design, fashions and so on.

It is, I suspect, shaped by marketing: segmenting the audience into a few huge blocs, maximising reach, while giving the impression of individualisation. 1/3

No there aren't. Unless, of course, you only feel comfortable listening to a podcast with tens of thousands of listeners! Personally, I find some super-niche podcasts, with just two-figure numbers of listeners can be fabulous!

I'm not super keen on FUDGE myself—it's interesting, but 4D3-8 really isn't intuitive!

I think the easiest core mechanism is 2d6 to achieve a target number. This puts modifiers in an intuitive range, and compounded advantages or disadvantages result in virtual certainly or impossibility.