whats incredible is when in their video they're talking about complexity, the cat's images have extra limbs in low and medium complexity. They could've easily generated more versions to get the clean versions. But it just doesn't seem like they care. Maybe this is what someone who is so used to using AI to move fast becomes: someone who drops the quality bar to 80%?
They mentioned multiple times in previous blog posts that they do not cherry pick examples.
Would you appreciate more if their model generated cats with 5 legs in 99% of cases, and they cherry picked that 1 in 100 image where it has 4 legs? Do you think doing that would make them more caring and professional?
I doubt their models are that bad for simple and common things like cats, probably takes just a handful of tries at most for something like getting the correct number of limbs. They could just mention the number of tries on the side like a little bubble showing up to show “Rendered in 5 attempts” or something along those lines. I wouldn’t think less of the tech personally.
That's an interesting observation, and that's also my feeling: Everything is now expected to move so fast, dropping quality bar to 80% or below is not uncommon.
Not like this is the fault of the AI progress, we could use AI to go beyond the quality what we used to deliver, too. It's just the pace expectations that are now "in the room" ?
People who make things often have an unrealistic expectation of how much users care about quality (and don't realize how much users actually care about price).
We've seen this play out over and over again, in many different sectors. The whole shtick of the old (Bellhead) telecom world was quality at the (literal) expense of price, which didn't work out well for them. Same for CD versus pirated mp3s, DVD versus pirated videos (and, to a lesser extend, theaters versus bootleg cam releases), native texting / GSM calls versus WhatsApp and similar, mainstream newspapers and media versus blogging and social media, traditional electrical appliances versus Chinese-made, and so on.
Because of the innovator's dilemma, In many cases, the cheaper, lower-quality product later surpasses the quality of its more expensive counterpart.
AI is just one more example of this happening. It lets you make more things which otherwise would be far too expensive to make, even if that often means a lower quality product.
Yeah, I've been mystified for years why they can't just train the "AI look" out of images. Is it, like, something undetectable by machine? But then how come we can often detect it so easily?
I think this is fundamental. People will probably dislike whatever it is that AI images look like, because whatever they look like is going to be associated with cheap. They could have a totally different aesthetic and I think most people's conception of cheap would adapt to whatever that is.
The current models have a fundamental architectural flaw: Every pixel they output costs the model as much effort as every other one. When you see detail in a work a human produced, the fact that there is detail communicates something about what the artist was focussing on. It shows you what they cared about, and by extension what you, the viewer, should care about to understand the piece. The AI, as currently designed, can’t do that, because it’s outputting entire raster images at once (and multi-pass generations tend to degrade into melty nonsense), it emphasises everything, and so emphasises nothing.
The “AI look” is a manifestation of the architecture itself, and that’s why you can really train or prompt around it. At best, bigger models have been able to partially suppress the worst aspects of it by throwing more parameters at the problem, but put the models under even a tiny bit of stress and the same flaws reemerge.
Very true. My theory is that if AI was able to produce a diverse enough range of styles (not artistic style, more like "artist's touch/bias"), then it would be much better. Exactly like Claude, talking to it wouldn't be so grating if it had, say, a 1000 different "writing styles" instead of the single one we have to engage with.
Some of it has to do with Classifier Free Guidance (CFG), a math thing that makes it more likely for a diffusion model to follow what you ask for in the prompt. However, turning up CFG inevitably causes high contrast and certain other artifacts.
With that being said, my understanding of that issue is a few years old, people have always said CFG is a havk until models get better at following prompts on their own. So thee “look” that tools like Nano Banana ends up with could be something else. It may or may not be a necessary artifact of some part of the process.
The problem isn't the classifier free guidance itself, but the choice of parameters. When a parameter above 1 is chosen you get images which very stronger conform to theme, but which there's not a good mathematical justification for.
Yeah, it must be some algorithmic thing like CFG, or some other technique, that causes the unrealistic AI look. Because Dall-E 2 didn't have it, but Dall-E 3 did to an extreme degree. Google's Imagen <= 3 also didn't have it, but Imagen 4 (and Nano Banana, which seems to use Imagen 4 in the background) suddenly had significant AI look, apart from much better prompt following and fewer visual mistakes (like too many fingers).
It's the opposite: the average person likes the AI look of images (the more "aesthetic" look) and RLHF keep converging toward that.
It is entirely possible to prompt engineer away from that style, but that requires effort and knowledge that said average person does not have, so it's stuck in a feedback loop.
This is not true. Think of the problems AI has with creating appetizing food imagery, for example. Images that every human annotator marks as unappealing with a high degree of consensus.
The problem is in the rewards, but it's more how they average across domains and contexts, so AI misapplies them. Actually, in human preference evaluations, most of Gen Z in particular extremely adverse to the common look of AI images.
So it's not the annotators involved in RLHF, it's the models failing to map to human preferences at the task level. The failure rate is also uneven across domains.
Where there are challenges with human annotation, it's not the ability to gauge what's good but rather how to correct what's wrong. Most people can tell when something is off but struggle to articulate why. That's where more domain expertise is required.
>This is not true. Think of the problems AI has with creating appetizing food imagery, for example. Images that every human annotator marks as unappealing with a high degree of consensus.
I think the way they'll solve it in the end is to create an ultra-high-fidelity simulation of the world including modelling taste and other senses on the level of physics, and then incorporate all of this into the training rewards.
I think this is how the machines know what tasty wheat tasted like.
I see restaurants post AI flyers and ads to random local Facebook groups and most of the replies are about them being AI slop. I think it’s an uncanny valley problem: People don’t mind if you post a real photo of your food or a cartoon drawing of a pizza or a pig on a spit, but when it’s a weird fake photo with texture issues, it looks gross, especially when it’s food.
I think a lot of people who open restaurants probably aren’t extremely online, partly because it would be physically impossible with the amount of work they have to do, but they definitely pay attention -sometimes too much attention — to public online feedback.
I get why restaurants use the cartoon-looking slop. If you don't particularly care that it signals that you put no effort into your menu or ad or that your restaurant's menu has the same shitty aesthetic as all other slop, fine. It's a cartoon and I could understand someone thinking it looks ok.
I absolutely do not get the uncanny-valley images. Those all look gross. Besides not actually being representative of the dish, the images have all sorts of weird texture issues, look too glossy, and are just unappetizing. I cannot understand why a restaurant owner would want to put up an ad that has food that looks straight up gross.
Professional food photography is expensive. This is a case of the free mediocre offer crowding out the much better but expensive option. Same way that free mail with ads crowded out email without ads.
The thing with those "AI Slop" comments are generally from people whom are opinionated about the image. However it's abundantly clear that the target demographic which is the customers generally don't mind. If you think about it, We have been conditioned by the "for illustrative purposes only" label on most food images that at this point most people just want a reference so they can decide what to eat. I'd take an AI image over just words any day.
I've been seeing "AI slop" stickers posted on things
> I see just everywhere including food menus
The places I have seen it in use are the places that would have a handwritten scribble that was misspelt and would be something mocked by people because it was written by ESOL (or vice versa, English speakers trying, but failing, to write in a different language)
Honestly, I think the AI slop is a step up - I can read the signs clearly, and they are only mildly offensive
Edit: I guess I take the view that - like a pirated movie filmed in a cinema - the only people that use/watch it are people that were never going to pay for the real thing anyway
You are actually a very skilled pattern recognizing machine. There's likely always going to be some bias and purple are going to be able to detect it and the human style will move away from it.
I doubt it, same with people that use ChatGPT for everything and don’t see the slip anymore and are confused when you point it out. LLM blindness is a real thing.
Someone posted an AI picture on Twitter, that was done in the style of a great classic painter of renown. Everyone tore it apart, discussing all the details that betrayed it as a pale imitation of the original. It was roundly panned as an example of how AI will never be good enough to replace humans. After this went on for some time, the initial poster revealed it wasn't actually AI at all, it was a genuine original from the artist in question.
People just hate AI and will find a post hoc justification for their hatred in every situation. The link you gave could have just as easily been someone expressing surprise and delight at the artists choice to not follow traditional physics... but instead be playful in unconstrained ways. Shrug.
I’ve only seen that happen once, and it was using a cropped Monet, but by cropping it, the picture actually did become bad. It was poorly composed, the colour balance was ruined and the level of detail was too low relative to the size of the brush strokes. These ‘gotchas’, when they aren’t just complete fabrications (which, given how often I see people talk about them, but how rarely I see any evidence presented, is most of the time) generally only reveal how little the people running the ‘experiments’ understood about art in the first place.
Artists aren't machines that churn out one masterpiece after another, they do create bad works (most artists would acknowledge that) and there are one hit wonders. I look at a lot of art and sometimes I like only one painting out of a series, or even out of a lifetime of work. Also, you often need the context of the artist's broader work to judge the quality of a single piece, which might otherwise appear like a bad picture in vacuum.
Most people in general, and for sure the majority of current twitter users have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to modernist art and its direct predecessors.
that kind of experiment was done multiple times, someone put a very famous photo from a very famous photographer on some photography critique forum and it was torn apart: badly framed, blurry, no composition, ....
the vast majority of people have no idea what they are doing, going on vibes and copying the opinions of their peers
It does look terrible. But keep in mind these decisions aren't made to please you or me on HN. The numbers clearly show the average user does not care about the AI look because they can't really tell the difference between human-gen and AI-gen. Whatever saves them money is what they will go with.
> The numbers clearly show the average user does not care about the AI look because they can't really tell the difference between human-gen and AI-gen.
Do you have a link to the numbers that clearly show this?
Do you need statistical numbers for every information you receive? I don’t have any numbers to show you besides the fact that everyone I have spoken to in the last 6 months knows how to generate an image on ChatGPT. I work in the construction industry, and 100% of the companies I deal with have at some point posted an AI-generated poster on their social media, or created their flyers and business cards. YMMV.
So nothing at all. Most people would notice the difference between no ads everywhere, and ads everywhere, would prefer no ads, and still there are ads. That there are ads tells us nothing about people.
It’s saving huge amounts of money for a lot of small businesses. I’ve seen AI posters, business cards, fliers, logos, etc from accounting firms, plumbers, electricians, chippies - you name it. Whether these ad-campaigns are actually working for them, I don’t know.
I'm deeply interested in this subject. In conversation, most people I talk to say they hate the look of AI generated "art," or find it uncanny or uncomfortable. However, whenever I'm on the bus or train, if I peek over the shoulder of someone, it's 50% chance they're endlessly scrolling AI generated short form video, either as unrelated clips or Chinese dramas (this being in Taiwan).
I suspect people are somewhat hypnotized by the content, in the same way a toddler is hypnotized by Cocomelon. Something about it is enthralling and keeps the attention. I wonder if it's related to the phone game icon / YouTube thumbnail phenomenon of "person's face making an extreme expression with the mouth open." AI generated videos for example still tend to have very exaggerated facial expressions and the mouth is always unusually wide when talking. I also wonder if something about the uncanny smoothness of movement (I assume caused by any form of transition defaulting to "linear") has a hypnotic effect.
I'm not sure how to look into this further. Elsagate is an interesting past example, and what I've learned so far I threw in a blog post a couple months back https://blog.calebjay.com/posts/psychic-attack/
Right now I'm looking into "Lula's army" and the AI generated content they used. I feel like there's something significant and perhaps even dangerous that could be developed bere.
My conclusion is that this technology is operating in roughly the same way as the personal computer, and that it's going to take similar timelines for the effects to manifest. We still haven't nailed down all the stuff AI is good at, and it's capabilities in known-good domains are increasing consistently. Engineers on my team are chaining together fascinating workflows that I imagine could be entire products, but things just aren't mature enough yet.
Advances are still coming rapidly -- we have quite a bit of time before this settles.
Why do all the "frontier" models still occasionally output images with the horrible ai texture tells? I'm surprised whoever made the front page let those ones in lol. My hypothesis is that it is either an unpatching or feature loss shortcut/artifact. Until then I have no hopes of ai generated images being viable for anything actually beautiful or creative
Sure, all of this might end up being very unpleasant, and I'm glad not to be a mathematician right now. But that's still better than a future where there aren't even any questions left that we can understand and an AI can't solve.
Also, it still seems that AI has a much different style from humans, with more brute force and using obscure literature results, and the future might still end up human/AI complementary. We aren't in an AlphaZero situation where the AI learns everything through self-play. (Yet? But we don't even seem to be moving that way much? Can anybody qualified help out?) Things are just moving really fast now and it's hard to process everything.
What I meant is e.g. the unit distance construction, which (per mathematicial comments) needed a combination of distant fields, so nobody had the necessary expertise. That's different from working within one obscure field.
I know it goes a tiny a bit against the spirit of what y'all are doing, but applying a few layers of pixel-wise local attention (so 1x1 "patch", with 3x3 or 5x5 attention window, basically treating it as a dynamic conv) has worked way better than both linear and conv unpatching in my recent experiments.
1) Linear unpatchify as usual to go from hidden states to pixel space
2) Attention within a local window (e.g. 3x3, 5x5) to "blend" pixel space data and come up with a better image (as an alternative to MLP or Convolution)
And follow up questions:
1) How do you handle boundaries between your "attention windows"? Do you move the window just like a convolution does or are the "attention windows" all mutually exclusive from one another?
2) How much faster/slower is this operation vs. a linear layer + MLP?
1) yes, but with more than channels than 3 (and no correspondence to color, its "pixel space" in the sense of position, not value)
1D grid example for clarity (obviously meant to be done in 2D though)
So embed -> [N dim, N dim, N dim ... , N dim]
instead of embed -> [RGB, RGB, RGB ... , RGB]
2) / [followup 1)] Stride of 1, so we place a window at each pixel (so lots of overlapping)
Also I wouldn't phrase it as "come up with a better image", the point is to give less spatial decoding pressure to the patch tokens so that they can almost completely focus on feature learning instead.
There is no reason to have the model learn spatial decoding when the structure prior of images is comically strong (especially compared to text), its a waste of training time and parameters
[followup 2)] I haven't measured but it was passable is all I can say (my experiments setup are horrendous right now lol)
(Also don't mind the phrasing, I just wanted to be 100% clear)
I'm surprised you haven't heard about Natten, it's a few years old now:
https://natten.org
It's the equivalent of sliding window attention, a common LLM optimisation. Global attention may be O(n2), but you can avoid that bottleneck by using local attention, even throughout the whole model. This could give you another efficiency boost, or enable you to process larger resolutions with linear instead of quadratic compute scaling.
> A diagnosis of
ADHD or autism in adulthood often leads to incredible relief and
grief in processing all the moments of being blamed and shamed for
what was assumed to be a lack of effort, laziness and/or defiance.
This is definitely a factor for me when I tried to get diagnosed (which failed lol), because my parents whom caused my trauma would obviously refuse to blame themselves for my emotionally stunted development
Exact same thing happened to me, and yet it was never cracked open. I am pretty much the only person that knows the truth, that I don't have this constellation of diagnoses but that they were a coverup for the abuse foisted upon me by my own family.
Sadly it is still (and probably will be) too easy to deflect responsibility and have everyone believe their side. They will probably pass on with nobody realizing what they've done to me. It took me long enough for me to realize my own situation, was how severe it was. I hope more people wake up to the fact that people like me are out there.
The false diagnosis is a perfect distraction for you to continue to blame yourself for all your faults while they get away with everything, for decades. That lost time will never come back.
I find this fascinating. "Relief and grief", but one way or another, you were always in trouble or being blamed for being "you".
The thing we call ADHD is just one phenotype amongst thousands. Every behaviour has a cause, and anyone out there who has been through a childhood with traumatic experiences and feelings of guilt and inadequacy need to understand that they don't need to be told that they have the currently-fashionable condition in order to forgive themselves.
This sounds flippant, but I don't mean it to be: What if I said that this happened because you had Mercury in Taurus? The point is here that nothing is your fault. Conversely, everything is; this mirrors the free-will vs predestination paradox.
> you were always in trouble or being blamed for being "you".
And the solution in the article is: how do best make them conform, and “do a bunch of work on themselves” so they are not like themselves, but more like the average.
I simply wrote to the psychiatrist a note that whatever my parents say, they'll make themselves look good, and therefore will paint a rosy childhood for me. I guess it also helped that my then partner was there and told her of how my parents told a "funny story" that made his parents gasp in horror.
Yep, the specialists having interviews with multiple different people from your environment (friends, partners, siblings...) help a lot to differentiate what's real and what not. Also, it's usual that once you pass your twenties you stop living with your parents and/or start shielding them a bit of your struggles, so they don't have the full view of your day to day "fight".
In my case they had interviews with two exes (who are two of my best friends), my sister and my parents.
I just said they didn't believe in ADHD, which in my case - their darling wilted hothoused angel - is true. Relying on a generation that stigmatises autism/ADHD for informant reporting is nuts anyway.
It was the story of how my brother was asked at school to draw a picture of his last birthday when he was about 5ish and drew stick figures carrying building material because we were building something in the yard and my parents forgot his birthday.
I think it’s the fact they think it’s funny is the real problem. Some people make mistakes, my wife and I don’t care about anniversary dates. But if some one is hurt, brushing it off and disregarding their feelings and your role in causing the hurt is abusive because it undermines the persons safety and connection with the world and other people.
Good grief. I read your comment and … the levels of parental neglect wrapped up in your single story are overwhelming me.
I’m sure you don’t need validation from random internet strangers, but as one with a similar enough childhood, I wanted to share that it’s a thoroughly shit club to be in.
Just an anecdote, but my mother forgot my 11th (I think) birthday, I’m 44 now and I think in just the last year or two she mentioned again she still feels guilty about it.
In her defense, I had my birthday party just a few days before and it was an unusual year in that school had started by (maybe even on) my birthday.
I remember feeling a bit disappointed on the day, but certainly not distraught or traumatised. I also never found myself randomly thinking about the incident after except for when my mom mentions it or from stories like this.
My point is that it depends on the person on how big a deal it was. Also, perhaps the parents do feel guilty about it, hence sometimes sharing it as a “funny story”, but I wouldn’t know.
My own 6 year old child seems to be neurodivergent (I suspect I am too) and is struggling a bit with pre-school, even now at a bridging school.
We first had to confront it about 2 years ago when the highly regarded mainstream school she was at said she would have to repeat the year.
At least for me as a parent, the possibility that my child won’t grow up to be a self sufficient is terrifying, so it was quite a bit to come to terms with.
Fortunately we weren't in denial and she’s getting exceptional assistance, but some parents definitely find themselves in denial when confronted with this situation.
Oh hey! I’m the same age as you, and while my kids are a bit older, they’re neurodivergent too. You didn’t ask for advice, and I won’t
I will say that my eldest, and otherwise wonderful and engaging daughter is having a hell of a time at her school right now, and schools and SEN provision and, honestly, competence, are highly variable, and I’ve been surprised at how large the differences can be.
It does depend a lot on the person, but it also depends on the parents. If they acknowledge it and attempt to make it right, that's one thing. However, if they just brush over it and don't acknowledge the child's loss, then it's a totally different case.
Honestly - and I hope this didn’t happen to you - it takes a surprising level of indifference for kids to pick up a “this is wrong” signal.
I’m not going to speak for anyone else, but if I forget a thing and “fixing” it is as simple as saying sorry and doing it the next day, I’ll do it. And I will keep doing it on a loop if need be _because I care_.
And that’s often the easy sign for this stuff. Did your parents forget and _not even try_ to show that they care?
It’s the sheer indifferent callousness that stands out starkest to me. It doesn’t take much, I’ve found, for people to state outright “you’re wrong to expect me to care about you.”
I thought it was a funny story. Only forgetting a birthday once seems like a success to me. We forgot Christmas and other holidays multiple times growing up. Just celebrate the next day/weekend. Besides, doing fun things with family is way better when it's not peak crowd season, which is always the case during holidays, or birthdays that land on weekends/early summer. I've even forgotten my own birthday countless times, starting way before I was an adult.
My wife and I have forgotten our own anniversaries and other events, so now we have reminders in our shared calendar so we don't forget to celebrate, mostly because it's embarassing to tell family that we both mutually forgot about our anniversary than that it actually bothers us. We have date night weekly anyway (and family night weekly)
Sadly it wasn't one birthday. Mine was near Christmas, so everybody remembered it (although I also hated it, because it was a dog and pony show to make everybody see what great parents they were), while my brother's was somewhere around April and thus was almost always forgotten.
I could absolutely forget my kid's birthdays. Even though I love them dearly. It's just a round around the sun and culturally made important. Idk what else was going on but building something in the yard together with your parent sounds like fun to me.
Or, this was sarcasm?
Anyway I don't like birthdays myself. I don't like getting presents, I don't like giving them. If you want something just buy it. Why this weird ritual??
It's a once a year reminder that people are happy that you exist.
Sometimes children can feel like maybe their existence makes their parents lives worse, so it is important for them to be reassured that that is not the case (even if it is).
It's also just a fun thing to do. For some kids it's one of the few times per year they're allowed to go wild with sweets, so it's something they look forward to.
> If you want something just buy it.
Kids also often do not yet manage their own finances, so they don't have the freedom to just buy the things they want.
Never forget to see the world from the viewpoint of your children, too. Birthdays are very important to them, because they grow up in a culture, and neither they nor you can avoid that. By being dismissive about what is important to them, you confuse and alienate them. My parents were very dismissive about school, and that made my whole school time a bad experience for me.
Well luckily my wife is always on the ball. But I tell them I love them almost everyday. I really hope they will forgive me my chaotic mind. If a child has to get all their sense of value from a single day a year something's very wrong. I get all your points, it's important but not that important.
If one of your kids said, hey, it’s ok, I love you and your chaotic mind, can you please buy me a card if or when you remember - and it pops into your mind after 10 or 20 or 100 days, or even 5 years later - would you buy them a card or not?
> If you want something just buy it. Why this weird ritual??
Or make it, as was my case growing up, when my parents couldn't afford what I wanted anyway.
Money isn't an issue now, so gifts are definitely annoying. I'm not going to wait a month to maybe get the correct drill bit/appliance/etc. I'll just get the correct one now, and play a game or go into town with me on/near-ish my birthday
For what it’s worth, once I figured out I could say something like “I’m going to buy this, would you like to call it my birthday present?” At pretty much well any point in the year, I found that the people around me really appreciated the chance to show care AND see me using something I like which they got for me.
Because we have never forgotten our kid's birthdays, but I have forgotten my own (ok I was older), and Inhave forgotten wedding anniversaries. I depend heavily on my phone for remembering these days. And, I'll be honest I am very curious about the responses I'd get, I do genuinely think the importance put on this one day is weird and was/am hoping someone would articulate in a rational way why we do. Sorry, I know it comes across as being a dick. But sometimes that's what internet identities can be for, right?
I think it just irks me that everybody thinks it's so bad this boy's birthday was forgotten, while not knowing anything about it. I have friends that take their kids to out-of-school care at 7:00, pick them up again 18:00 all week, so they can put them to bed and that's it. But hey, they have a nice birthday right? Lot of presents! We have always made it a point to have someone at home (early on it was also the grand parents), someone to pick them up from school, no day-care, we have a drink with them ask them about their day, help them go to friends etc. But heavens forbid if I'd forget a birthday (which honestly could happen without my partner here, although with smartphones nowadays it'd indeed be a big oversight.)
Thanks for taking me in the spirit I intended; I wrote more aggressively than I’d intended, on reflection.
You’re not a dick and you weren’t being a dick, I totally agree about writing on the internet - it’s tricky to feel and to tell, and I imagine I must be insufferable at times.
I can see your point now and I think we might agree on more than either of us first thought. I can see how much you care for your family in every word you’ve written, and I’d be a bit surprised if one of your kids was at home, told you it’s their birthday, and your reaction would be to laugh about it, and then carry on with your day as normal with no further reaction or acknowledgement of it.
So - Ii’s not about remembering, or about the card or presents or cake: it’s what you do with the information in front of you. From the sounds of it you’re demonstrating your care brilliantly every day.
(I have the same type of brain wiring you’ve described, incidentally. My extremely accepting wife would ask me to buy her some flowers, nothing showy, just something to brighten up the house and remind her of me. And I’d hear that as “she wants me to remember to buy her flowers sometime” and file it away. And several years later we figured out that gap in our communications and nowadays, when it’s important enough to her that she asks me to buy her flowers - I buy the flowers. Turns out that that was all it took to demonstrate that I care.)
I was diagnosed as an adult a little over a decade ago. I am still waiting on that "relief" part to come. Most days, I wish I never went through the diagnostic process in the first place.
As an ASD, if you mean support by putting you on benefits, then I absolutely do not want to have any support like that. I certainly do not think that anyone that can participate in conversations should live a life without becoming part of society and be responsible about how they live.
The support I need is just to have NORMAL people around that I can mirror and be part of normal society, and not just traumatized people or criminals(which can be the same as well).
While I support free will, but cannabis changes brains - and people, that have killed certainly can't claim that they had any beneficial effects from smoking cannabis.
And as someone that have heightened senses, I also have negative bias towards cannabis use in public. Also, I have tried it - it did not made me feel better, but worse - I felt even more stressed. I would rather be drunk, than smell cannabis around me.
> You don't have ADHD or autism, you just suffered from trauma.
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, but more specifically I wanted to relieve myself of blame through a label my parents could more easily empathize with
It can be both. It frequently is when you're trying to navigate a condition and everybody is downplaying it or just pointing it as your fault for being stupid or lazy. And, yes, years of that (frequently involuntary) gaslighting creates trauma.
Well, adult treatment paths for complex ptsd are definitely much more resource intensive than adhd (medication) or autism (congrats for getting the diagnosis and good luck). So I don't think this can be what the article is about. It may not be well-covered by insurance, though, and thus not as much pursued (as compared to treating the superficial symptoms of depression, anxiety etc), especially as evidence for positive outcomes and standardised treatment is much more lacking.
I’m sure a lot of people seeking an ADHD / Autism diagnosis after “discovering” they “totally have it” after seeing a video on social media do not in fact have ADHD / Autism.
Who knows? At least a YT video puts them in the direction of getting a proper evaluation after potential decades of struggling and not knowing "what's wrong with me", etc.
The problem is that even certified professional clinicians can't reliably determine whether you have "it". Studies have shown that when the same patient is examined by three different mental health providers they often receive three different diagnoses (or no diagnosis at all). It's a highly subjective process, and patients themselves often exhibit significantly different behaviors at different times.
Some of them already exist. I'm optimistic enough to think plain ol' humans can do the others. I'm also fine with narrow AI that doesn't present the same risk as ASI; Google has built such AIs for protein folding and nuclear fusion, and nobody worries that they'll be any sort of problem.
If ASI is the only way then I'm fine with dying of old age without seeing this stuff, rather than risking human extinction. And even if ASI doesn't kill us, I'd rather see humans do it, instead of watching ASI do it while it keeps humans as pets.
We've come a long way all on our own. I don't think we've run out of tricks. It would be a shame if the human era came to an end.
reply