But Musk is not implying any of those less-than-flattering things. Nobody knows what Musk actually thinks, but what he implied is pretty clear. He calls it "a bomb", and we all know what that means.
And this matters, because Musk was a major campaign contributor and advisor to someone he has now implied to be a pedophile. What does this say about Musk?
As per usual, every accusation from a narcissist is a confession.
You know who absolutely is connected to Epstein? Elon's brother, Kimbal (allgedly) [1].
And while not related to Epstein but is just gross and in a similar ballpark, Elon's father Errol, had a stepdaughter from his wife's first marriage, Jana Bezuidenhout, who grew up in his house from age 4. He later went on to father two children with Jana (the first when she was 30, I believe) [2]. It's unclear when the relationship began. The only public statements are after Jana had a break-up.
It doesn't surprise me at all that a guy so gross in his personal life comes from a gross family. Everything about Musk is deranged.
Do you remember the (not so distant era) when Musk was the nerd's and hacker's darling? SpaceX, his genius, his vision! This was before we knew much about his personal life and opinions. It seems so long ago now... Before he took to Twitter to claim it was OK to coup countries for their resources, or started naming children like mathematical formulas.
He's a symptom. It is our society, globally, that has become deranged. Almost all public figures are a shade of scumbag these days. Maybe they always were and there is no longer any reason to hide it.
I can speak for Argentina, where the situation (the sharp deterioration of public discourse, the "rule by Twitter posts", flamewars between government officials, incredibly aggressive public discourse, obvious fraud that doesn't get prosecuted if it's done by some political factions, etc) mirrors the US in many ways. I would say in Argentina we repeat tragedy in the form of farce, except what's going on in the States is also a farce.
Personally, I don't jump to conclusions based on vague statements or evidence.
> What does this say about Musk?
Who knows? Musk has thin associations with Epstein and Maxwell as well, he is a proven liar, is at times visibly manic, and has been reported to drop relationships at a whim when challenged.
There could be plenty of things driving his behavior, but I don't think this informs anything new about his character.
You got me wrong: I'm not talking about the veracity of the accusation, I'm asking about what it says about Musk (regardless of its truth).
Especially in the eyes of Musk fans.
This guy is now effectively claiming he helped get someone elected president whom he knew was a pedophile. Musk claims Trump got elected thanks to his support (again, Musk claims this). He also claims Trump is a pedophile.
So what do Musk fans think about Musk (not Trump) in light of this?
> Personally, I don't jump to conclusions based on vague statements or evidence.
When it comes to drawing conclusions about the intent of the person making the vague statement, this is an error. It helps create the plausible deniability that public manipulators use to their advantage.
The parent seems to be, in part, referring to "reward hacking", which tends to be used as a super category to what many refer to as slop, hallucination, cheating, and so on.
The reasons humans can't and the reasons LLMs can't are completely different though. LLMs are often incapable of performing multiplication. Many humans just wouldn't care to do it.
Linting isn't verification of correctness, and yes, you can fool the compiler, linters, etc. Work with some human interns, they are great at it. Agents will do crazy things to get around linting errors, including removing functionality.
Just checking off the list of things you've determined to be irrelevant. Compiler? Nope. Linter? Nope. Test suite? Nope. How about TLA+ specifications?
TLA+ specs don’t verify code. They verify design. Such design can be expressed in whatever, including pseudocode (think algorithms notation in textbooks). Then you write the TLA specs that will judge if invariants are truly respected. Once you’re sure of the design, you can go and implement it, but there’s no hard constraints like a type system.
At what level of formal methods verification does the argument against AI-generated code fall apart? My expectation is that the answer is "never".
The subtext is pretty obvious, I think: that standards, on message boards, are being set for LLM-generated code that are ludicrously higher than would be set for people-generated code.
Also, professional programmers have varying needs. These people are coding in different languages, with varying complexity, domains, existing code bases and so on.
People making arguments based on sweeping generalizations to a wide audience are often going to be perceived as delusional, as their statements do not apply universally to everyone.
To me, thinking LLMs can code generally because you have success with them and then telling others they are wrong in how they use them is making a gigantic assumptive leap.
> I consented to the increase before mentioned; so that, whereas previous, what with bread, meat, the yolk of an egg, and soup, I ate as much as twelve ounces, neither more nor less, I now increased it to fourteen; and whereas before I drank but fourteen ounces of wine, I now increased it to sixteen. This increase, had, in eight days’ time, such an effect upon me, that, from being cheerful and brisk, I began to be peevish and melancholy, so that nothing could please me. On the twelfth day, I was attacked with a violent pain in my side, which lasted twenty-two hours and was followed by a fever, which continued thirty-five days without any respite, insomuch that all looked upon me as a dead man; but, God be praised, I recovered, and I am positive that it was the great regularity I had observed for so many years, and that only, which rescued me from the jaws of death.
It looks like it is 130 days per year, not a rolling start from the date of hiring.
reply