Just the fact that a ground-breaking result is not published in a proper journal should be enough to clue in PhDs.

I find that suggestion alarming. I worry if I'm out of touch.

The "Reclaiming AI" paper is a rant full of unsourced assertions. A supposedly ground-breaking proof is hidden away in an appendix. I first thought I had the wrong paper when I looked it up.

Parapsychology papers look more serious.

For anti-AI people to see the parallels between these arguments and academic creationism requires certain intellectual skills and a willingness to accept an unwelcome conclusion. IE it requires exactly that which is conspicuously absent.

Creationism seems motivated by group identity, or monetizing that identity.

Perhaps anti-AI is getting there, but it seems mostly about fearing loss of money/status.

IvR (et al) don't seem to have a creationist identity. That rant sounded a lot like status fears.

It's a simple intuition about the world. Only people create things. Rocks just lie there.

To a degree, anti-AI implies creationism. For complete rejection, you have to believe that AI algorithms based on evolution don't work either. But I feel most "Antis" would claim to be open to sci-fi AI.

I doubt if she's a creationist in the usual sense. There simply is a parallel between creationism and whatever this is:

The conviction that a "blind" process cannot create.

If it's not from a human, then it's AI slop. I don't think that all the people who have such ideas are creationists.

Does it look like a real paper? It's a rant full of unsourced assertions. A supposedly ground-breaking proof is tucked away in an appendix.

I wonder if this paper indicates a systemic problem. Diederik Stapel is Dutch, too.

It's telling, yes. Even if one forgoes all critical thought and takes the "proof" at face value, this is bonkers.

It explicitly rests on the assumption that the answer to the P vs NP problem is indeed no.

It would be more "rational" to conclude that the assumption is wrong.

The 2 Germans campaign for a massive expansion of internet surveillance and control.

Such infrastructure can only be abused.

Aww. Like bring your kid to work day at the Kremlin.

Narcissistic. That was what I thought when I read that "Reclaiming AI" paper.

Your normal crank has some conviction, they can no longer rationally review.

But here was someone who felt wronged by AI intruding on her turf and it is the greatest crime ever against all that is good and right.

Wow. That rejection of rationality is so OG right wing. A mainstay of intellectual conservatism since Burke; picked up by people like "von" Hayek, or Chesterton.

Here presented as left wing?

These people are weird. Any idea what drives them?

Tell me you have a bad job without telling me you have a bad job.

more sensible laws in the US is limited. It also makes them vulnerable to locally operating companies that can.

So there's an incentive to spread onerous rules to stifle competition.

That's one (proposed) textbook mechanism behind the Brussels effect.

This might be an example of "The Brussels Effect".

Internationally, especially but not just, in the EU, Google has to comply with bad laws. Abridging freedom of information harms all but especially the countries that do it.

So Google's ability to take advantage of the relatively