#AI cognitive abilities

[ismailfazil1-blog]

The Human Brain vs. Supercomputers: The Ultimate Comparison

Are Supercomputers Smarter Than the Human Brain?

This article delves into the intricacies of this comparison, examining the capabilities, strengths, and limitations of both the human brain and supercomputers.

[preciousvictory]

I’m gonna start smacking people upside the head bc y’all need to STOP

[moths-in-a-coat]

my step dad has gotten into those entirely ai videos on youtube

like it’s using one of those distinct ai voices, ai pictures complete with fucked up hands, ai generated captions, and even an ai script filled with misinformation

it’s so obviously ai it actually hurts

[maya-joshi-blogs]

Recruitment Aptitude Testing: Measuring Skills for Career Success

As organizations increasingly focus on finding the best talent for their teams, recruitment aptitude testing has emerged as a key tool in shaping successful hiring strategies. While traditional hiring methods often rely heavily on resumes and interviews, aptitude testing offers a more objective approach, helping businesses make data-driven decisions. Recruitment aptitude testing goes beyond surface-level impressions, providing a deeper look into a candidate’s skills, problem-solving abilities, and potential for success in a specific role. If you are an employer looking to optimize your hiring process or a job seeker preparing for assessments, understanding the role of recruitment aptitude testing can give you the edge you need.

In this post, we’ll explore what recruitment aptitude testing is, how it works, the benefits it offers to employers, challenges faced by recruiters, and the future of this innovative approach to hiring. We’ll also examine what candidates can expect when facing these tests and how they can leverage their results to unlock career success.

1. What is Recruitment Aptitude Testing?

At its core, recruitment aptitude testing is a systematic process used by employers to measure a candidate's abilities in various areas relevant to the job role. Unlike traditional interviews, which are subjective and can often be influenced by personal biases, aptitude tests provide objective, measurable insights into a candidate's potential.

Definition

Recruitment aptitude tests evaluate a candidate’s cognitive abilities, such as logical reasoning, problem-solving skills, verbal and numerical proficiency, and their ability to think critically. These tests are specifically designed to measure skills and competencies that are essential for job performance, making them a reliable tool for predicting future job success.

Types of Aptitude Tests

Cognitive Ability Tests: These tests assess general intelligence, including problem-solving, pattern recognition, and abstract thinking. They are used to predict how well a candidate will perform in a given role by testing their ability to learn new concepts and adapt to challenges.

Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs): SJTs present candidates with hypothetical, job-related situations, asking them how they would respond. These tests evaluate decision-making abilities and can reveal how candidates approach problems and make choices under pressure.

Skill-Specific Assessments: Certain roles require specific skills, and aptitude tests can be tailored to measure these abilities. For example, a coding test for a software developer or a language proficiency test for a customer service role.

Personality and Cultural Fit Assessments: These tests measure a candidate’s personality traits and determine if they align with the company culture. While they don’t directly assess job-related skills, they can help identify individuals who are likely to succeed within the organization’s environment.

Key Goals of Aptitude Testing

Objective Evaluation: Aptitude tests provide a standardized and unbiased method for assessing candidates' capabilities.

Reducing Bias: Since aptitude tests focus on skills rather than personal characteristics, they help reduce unconscious biases that may influence hiring decisions.

Role Matching: Aptitude testing ensures candidates are matched to roles that suit their skills and abilities, enhancing job satisfaction and long-term success.

2. The Role of Aptitude Testing in Modern Recruitment

In today’s competitive job market, organizations are increasingly relying on recruitment aptitude testing to streamline their hiring processes. With the demand for top talent higher than ever, businesses can’t afford to rely on traditional hiring methods alone. Recruitment aptitude tests offer a way to cut through the noise and pinpoint the candidates who are most likely to excel in their roles.

Why Skills Matter More Than Ever

Skills-based hiring has become a focal point for many organizations as they look for candidates who can hit the ground running. Traditional qualifications, such as a college degree, are no longer the sole indicators of success. Employers now recognize that hands-on skills and the ability to apply knowledge in real-world scenarios are just as valuable—if not more so—than academic achievements.

Recruitment aptitude testing offers a reliable way to evaluate these hands-on skills. For example, a coding test can show if a software developer is capable of writing efficient code, while a situational judgment test can gauge how a candidate would handle a high-pressure customer service situation.

Data-Driven Decision-Making

Aptitude testing is a data-driven approach to hiring. By using a combination of cognitive and skills assessments, employers can gather concrete evidence to support their hiring decisions. This not only improves the accuracy of decisions but also allows for a more structured and consistent recruitment process.

For instance, in industries like technology and finance, where specific skill sets are crucial, aptitude tests can provide clear insights into whether a candidate has the necessary skills to succeed. With this information, recruiters can confidently move forward with candidates who have the best potential for long-term success.

Benefits for Employers

Reducing Hiring Errors: Aptitude tests can help reduce the risk of making poor hiring decisions by providing an objective measure of a candidate’s skills. This minimizes the chance of hiring someone who doesn’t meet the job requirements, reducing turnover and associated recruitment costs.

Streamlining the Process: When employers use aptitude tests, they can quickly assess multiple candidates on an equal footing. This not only speeds up the hiring process but also ensures consistency in evaluating candidates across different stages of recruitment.

Identifying High-Potential Candidates: Aptitude tests reveal more than just a candidate’s current skill level; they also shed light on their ability to grow and develop in the future. Candidates who excel in these tests are likely to perform well and adapt quickly to new challenges, making them valuable assets to any team.

3. Designing Effective Aptitude Tests

Creating an effective aptitude test requires careful consideration of various factors. It's important to ensure that the tests are relevant, fair, and scientifically validated to provide accurate insights into a candidate’s capabilities.

Key Elements of a Good Test

Relevance to Job Roles: The test should measure skills that are directly relevant to the position. For example, a marketing role might include tests focused on creativity, communication, and problem-solving, while an engineering role might include tests on technical abilities like math and logical reasoning.

Fairness and Inclusivity: A well-designed test must be inclusive, ensuring that it does not favor one group of candidates over another. This includes avoiding cultural or gender biases that could affect the results.

Scientific Validation and Reliability: It’s essential that aptitude tests are scientifically validated to ensure they measure what they are intended to measure. Reliable tests help recruiters confidently rely on the results when making decisions.

Customization for Industry Needs

Different industries require different skills, and this should be reflected in the design of the aptitude tests. For example, a financial firm might prioritize numerical reasoning and analytical skills, while a creative agency might focus on problem-solving and communication. Customizing the tests to suit industry-specific requirements ensures that the assessments are both relevant and useful in evaluating candidates for the role.

Balancing Automation and Human Judgment

While automation in recruitment processes offers efficiency, it’s important not to remove the human element entirely. Recruiters should combine test results with their judgment and experience to assess the overall suitability of a candidate for the role. Aptitude tests should be seen as a tool to complement, not replace, human judgment.

4. Challenges in Using Recruitment Aptitude Tests

Despite their advantages, recruitment aptitude tests can present challenges for employers. Recognizing these challenges and addressing them can help organizations use these tests more effectively.

Common Pitfalls

Over-Reliance on Test Scores: While aptitude tests provide valuable insights, they should not be the sole factor in hiring decisions. A candidate's experience, cultural fit, and soft skills are also crucial elements to consider.

Lack of Customization: Generic tests that aren’t tailored to specific job roles can provide irrelevant or misleading results. Customizing tests to align with the requirements of the role is essential to their success.

Mitigating Bias

Despite efforts to create unbiased tests, there is always the potential for bias in recruitment processes. Ensuring that tests are free from bias—whether it's gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic—requires careful design and regular reviews of test content and application.

Cost and Implementation

Developing and implementing aptitude tests can be costly, especially if they require specialized software or platform integration. However, the long-term benefits—reduced turnover, faster hiring, and improved candidate quality—can outweigh the initial costs.

5. The Candidate’s Perspective

As a candidate, aptitude tests can be both exciting and intimidating. But understanding what to expect and how to prepare can turn these tests into an opportunity for growth.

Preparing for Aptitude Tests

The key to success in aptitude testing is preparation. Familiarize yourself with the types of tests you may encounter, whether it’s a coding test, logical reasoning challenge, or a personality assessment. There are numerous online resources and practice tests available that can help you hone your skills.

Transparency in Testing

Employers should always explain the purpose of the aptitude tests to candidates. This ensures that candidates understand how the results will be used and what the tests are designed to measure. When candidates feel informed and prepared, they are more likely to perform well.

Feedback and Growth

Aptitude tests can provide valuable feedback on areas where you excel and areas for improvement. Whether or not you succeed in passing a test, use the results as a learning experience to sharpen your skills and prepare for future opportunities.

6. The Future of Recruitment Aptitude Testing

Recruitment aptitude testing is rapidly evolving, with new trends and technologies shaping its future.

Trends to Watch

AI and Machine Learning: Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are increasingly being integrated into aptitude testing platforms. These technologies enable adaptive testing, where the difficulty of questions adjusts based on a candidate’s responses, providing a more accurate assessment of their abilities.

Gamification: Many employers are experimenting with gamified recruitment assessments that make the testing process more engaging for candidates. These tests often focus on skills such as problem-solving and creativity and provide real-time feedback, making the process both interactive and informative.

Evolving Employer-Candidate Dynamics

As recruitment aptitude testing becomes more widespread, the dynamic between employers and candidates will continue to evolve. Candidates may be more likely to view these tests as a standard part of the hiring process, while employers will benefit from a broader, more diverse pool of candidates.

Ethical Considerations

As recruitment aptitude testing becomes more integrated into hiring practices, ethical considerations around data privacy and fairness will become more important. It’s crucial for organizations to ensure that the tests are used responsibly and that candidates’ personal information is kept secure.

Recruitment aptitude testing is a game-changer in the hiring process. It allows employers to make data-driven decisions, reduce hiring errors, and match candidates to roles that suit their skills and abilities. As a candidate, preparing for and understanding these tests can give you a competitive advantage in securing the role you desire. As both employers and candidates embrace recruitment aptitude testing, we can expect to see more efficient, fair, and effective hiring practices that pave the way for career success.

Also Read :

Study Abroad Scholarships

IELTS Vs. TOEFL: Which Should You Take?

Understanding Liberal Arts and Fine Arts

FAQs

What is the purpose of recruitment aptitude testing? Recruitment aptitude testing serves to assess candidates' cognitive abilities, problem-solving skills, and job-specific competencies, providing a more objective and reliable measure of their suitability for a role.

Are aptitude tests accurate predictors of job success? Yes, aptitude tests are designed to measure skills that are directly related to job performance. While no test is foolproof, they are reliable indicators of a candidate's ability to succeed in a given role.

How can candidates prepare for recruitment aptitude tests? Candidates can prepare by practicing sample tests online, improving relevant skills, and familiarizing themselves with the types of assessments they may encounter during the hiring process.

What types of skills do recruitment aptitude tests measure? Aptitude tests measure cognitive abilities, such as logical reasoning, numerical proficiency, verbal skills, and specific technical abilities required for the job.

Are recruitment aptitude tests biased? Well-designed aptitude tests aim to be unbiased, but it’s important for employers to regularly review and update tests to eliminate any potential biases related to culture, gender, or other factors.

Can recruitment aptitude tests replace interviews? While aptitude tests provide valuable insights, they should complement interviews, not replace them. Interviews offer the opportunity to assess soft skills, cultural fit, and a candidate’s overall potential.

What industries use recruitment aptitude testing? Recruitment aptitude testing is widely used across industries, particularly in technology, finance, healthcare, and customer service sectors, where specific skill sets are crucial.

How can recruitment aptitude tests help employers? These tests help employers identify the best-fit candidates, streamline the hiring process, reduce turnover, and make more data-driven decisions.

What is the difference between aptitude tests and personality tests? Aptitude tests measure a candidate's cognitive abilities and skills related to job performance, while personality tests assess traits that impact how a person interacts with others and fits within a company culture.

Are there any ethical concerns related to recruitment aptitude testing? Ethical concerns include ensuring data privacy, eliminating biases, and ensuring tests are fair and transparent to candidates. Employers should take these factors into account to avoid discrimination and ensure responsible use of test results.

[theskyexists]

Wanna try and work on that game again but last time I tried I was no longer smart and couldn't hold two abstract things in my head at the same time

[thewertsearch]

TT: Anyway, I kind of owe it to him to let the program run as often as possible. GG: Jake? TT: No. TT: The responder. TT: It is a fully cognitive, self-aware entity I am responsible for, not even to mention an approximate cerebral duplicate of myself. TT: You don't just make a clone of yourself to live in a dead end existence where it has no chance to thrive as an individual or surpass its limitations.

Alright - but wouldn't 'letting it run as often as possible' mean never turning it off?

I suppose it's possible that the AR's server needs to be taken down for maintenance - but that's not an issue I ever expected us to encounter with this kind of wacky sci-fi technology. It's hard to imagine a Transportalizer needing maintenance.

TT: Also. TT: The more the software runs, the broader and more detailed its experiential canopy becomes. Makes for a better dialogic partner.

Ah, so this is the real reason you're keeping him awake. I'm sure that ethics is a factor, but your primary motivation is to make your AI minion more advanced - and thus, more useful.

If I was in Bro's position, I'd be worried about the AI getting a little too advanced, and going full Skynet - but I guess he's assuming his brain clone will share his motivations. Jade made that mistake before, and it got messy.

GG: Dialogic? GG: Are you saying you have conversations with your own auto-responder? TT: Of course. TT: Why do you think I made the thing?

Because you're desperately lonely, just like all the other human Players.

Before the Act started, I was fairly optimistic about Guardian Dave's ability to raise a child - but since Guardian Rose appears to have retained some of Mom's less savory traits, I have a horrible feeling that Guardian Dave might take after Bro.

These children cannot catch a break.

[rebeccawangart]

The Evils of Generative AI

Posted this on my Instagram and thought I would share here too.

I know most of you follow me for the cute and colorful animal portraits, and I am not stopping creating art. But I am irate about the state of the world and will use my platform to discuss the uncomfortable realities that negatively affect me personally, and everyone I know. This is a topic I am passionate about, and I will not keep quiet about it; complacency and apathy are the death of creativity and of our livelihoods, so I will continue to educate about and fight against this.

Copyright Infringement

Generative AI takes the work of millions without permission, license, or compensation. All creative works are copyrighted the moment of their creation, and using them in this manner is unethical. GenAI would not even have content to produce if it wasn't stealing millions of copyrighted material.

2. Marginalized Groups

There is a significant overlap between artists and marginalized groups. LGBTQ, Bipoc, neurodivergent and those with disabilities are disproportionately affected.

3. Environmental Impacts

Generative AI uses a disproportionately large amount of electricity and water to generate content, and has a detrimental effect on the environment.

4. Loss of Jobs

Artists, musicians, writers, authors, photographers, comic creators, linguists, translators, actors, voice actors, animators, graphic artists, designers, and other creative professionals have lost or will lose their jobs because of generative AI. GenAI steals from these individuals and then creates content that undermine them and their careers.

5. Cognitive Decline

When you outsource critical thinking to a machine, you will lose the ability to think for yourself. Cognitive decline and loss of creative thinking skills is a serious side effect of AI.

6. Misinformation and Harm

Generative AI is prone to something called "hallucinations" where it will completely make up something false just so it can have something to output. This has resulted in misinformation in published AI books and articles, as well as weird artifacts in images. False information can have detrimental effects.

7. Loss of Humanity

Art is a human achievement. The purpose of art is to share your life experience, emotions, and ideas with others through your creations. Using GenAI to spit out material completely misses the point of creating art, it lacks the human touch. Art should never be commoditized. Art is not about making money fast as the expense of humanity.

[creacherkeeper]

the reliance of college students on gen ai thing is particularly crazy to me as a college writing instructor whos also about to finish an educational psychology certificate because like one huge thing ive learned in my classes is that the american college system is pretty dogshit at teaching students when it comes both to content mastery and also preparing them for the workforce. like these kids are graduating college and going into jobs that they have their degrees in and dont know how to thrive in the workforce and Also dont really know much about the thing they got their degree in. and theres a lot of reasons for that that i could go over in depth but i'll spare yall

BUT the thing that college is like the most decent at is changing the way people think about knowledge itself. further education (high school to undergrad to graduate school) is a huge factor in what develops your epistemological beliefs (epistemology being the nature and theories of knowledge). like your epistemology does naturally change as you get older, but with further education you learn that knowledge itself is complex, ever changing, and interrelated, meaning you inherently trust "facts" less and actually perform critical thinking when presented with new information

but,,,,,, with that new study microsoft did on generative ai showing that usage of gen ai in the workplace can lead to the degradation of independent problem solving skills and that people who trust gen ai actively use less critical thinking to do tasks,,, and that giving yourself fewer opportunities for critical thinking degrades your ability to think critically at all even when it comes to important tasks,,,

like. all these students are using gen ai and sometimes their classes are actively encouraging them to use gen ai and i fear were losing like the one big thing american undergrad is good for bc lets be real its pretty dogshit at everything else

and considering the nature of the topic:

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Anderson, J. R., Gelman, R., Glaser, R., Greenough, W. T., Ladson-Billings, G., Means, B. M., Mestre, J. P., Nathan, L., Pea, R. D., Peterson, P. L., Rogoff, B., Romberg, T. A., & Wineburg, S. S. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press. (pp. 31-50) Lee, H.P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch,L. Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. CHI Conference in on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778 Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-34). Jossey-Bass. Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. Boston: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Torff, B., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Changing mind, changing world: Practical intelligence and tacit knowledge in adult learning. In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 109-126). Lawrence Erlbaum

[jadeharleyinc]

The "AI Rots Your Brain" Study

"The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking" is a study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University and Microsoft Research Cambridge.

it has been widely reported on as "concluding that AI makes human cognition atrophied and unprepared" (404 media) or as "linking AI usage with a deterioration in critical-thinking skills" (New York Magazine).

is that true? what does the paper actually say, though? it's only 20 pages, so you can check for yourself. otherwise, read on.

the survey's methodology has been... misrepresented, to put it mildly. this paper did not measure actual thinking ability. it surveyed workers who used AI at work, asked questions like "do you usually trust AI outputs? how do you think about them critically? if you can't, what obstacles are stopping you?"

the paper aimed to answer two research questions:

When and how do knowledge workers perceive the enaction of critical thinking when using GenAI? When and why do knowledge workers perceive increased/decreased effort for critical thinking due to GenAI?

pages 14-16 of the study discuss the survey's findings, and what they mean for AI tools, workers, and critical thinking skills. i've summarized these conclusions, point by point, as follows.

confidence and knowledge 1) people who say they trust genAI to be truthful are likely to be the same people who say they exercise less critical thinking about AI outputs. (makes sense.) 2) people who say they have confidence in their work skills are likely to say they are critical of the AI's output, even if they perceive this critical look as requiring extra effort. 3) it's possible that fostering workers' expertise and confidence in their domains will increase their ability to think critically about AI outputs. 4) a worker being confident in their skills at a task is associated with the worker's ability to delegate and guide the task. 5) a worker being unconfident in their skills at a task can rely more on AI, which potentially lowers their critical engagement and independent problem-solving skills. 6) in a nutshell, workers knowledgeable at a task invest more effort in thinking critically while using AI for it; less knowledgeable workers invest less.

the researchers suggest: 7) empowering users to 1. develop their skills, 2. develop a balanced relationship with the AI where it's not either the user or the AI calling all the shots. 8) adding feedback mechanisms to AI tools that help users gauge reliability of AI outputs, so they can know when to trust and when to question. 9) that AI tools let users customize and refine how the output is made, how much AI assistance is provided, depending on confidence and task complexity.

to do this, they see several approaches. potential approach 1: 10) AI tools could underline opportunities for critical thinking, especially for tasks the worker finds unimportant or secondary. 11) for example, AI tools could have systems to proactively interrupt the user and highlight a situation where it may be overlooked that critical thinking is needed. 12) another approach is to allow the user to request critical thinking assistance when they consciously need it.

potential approach 2: 13) increase the motivation to use critical thinking. workers use it less when they think it's not their job, and use it more when aiming to develop their skills. 14) therefore, AI tools could encourage critical thinking thtrough the lens of skill development and professional growth, not arbitrary and sometimes-irrelevant "audits".

potential approach 3: 15) enhance the ability to think critically. workers often refrain from thinking critically when they don't have the skills to fact-check or improve AI's responses. 16) this means learning opportunities: AI providing explanations for its reasoning, suggesting ways the users should refine their knowledge, or offering guided critiques. 17) the AI could help the worker develop specific skills: how to analyze arguments or cross-reference facts against sources. (see: AI as partner in skill development.)

so how is AI impacting critical thinking, specifically? 18) usually critical thinking involves analysis, synthesis and evaluation. using AI tools changes what tasks a worker performs to fulfill these goals. 19) when recalling and understanding, the worker focuses less on gathering information and more verifying it. (less need to find info, more need to verify it.) 20) when applying information, the worker focuses less on solving a problem and more on integrating the AI's solution. ("is this relevant? what parts should i tweak?") 21) when analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating, the worker focuses less on executing the task and more on supervising the task. ("stewardship" more than "collaboration".)

so, to think critically, workers that use AI should be trained: 22) on how to verify information, integrate outputs, and guide the task. 23) on cross-referencing with sources, assessing if AI output is relevant or applicable, and refining their use of AI processes. 24) on maintaining foundational problem-solving and information-gathering skills so they aren't overly reliant on AI.

the researchers point out some limitations of their study: 25) surveyed workers sometimes confuse "the task now takes me less effort" and "i spend less effort on critical thinking". (hey, we don't assess our critical thinking often.) 26) surveyed workers might think less critically when they get an AI output that matches what they expected. that could expect the aforementioned confusion. 27) asking workers to report their confidence at a task produces subjective responses. 28) the survey was conducted solely in english, and aimed only at fluent english speakers. 29) the survey sample biases towards younger, technologically skilled workers who use AI tools at work at least once a week. older and less techy people are underrepresented. 30) this is just a baseline study and long term impact has to be tracked.

i now encourage you to draw your own conclusions.

[klapollo]

Tech bros were so so genius to call shit like chatgpt AI and not "large language models" because ppl really think this shit is smart and has unique cognitive abilities and not just a machine trained off billions of data points and fine tuned to do certain things well with more training and data.

[spread-the-influence]

I might be slow bc I realized this is one of the worst things you can do to Cain 😭🙏🏾

In episode 3 I think he said that making adventures was all he was good at all he exist to do. And then he genuinely started to tweaking. And the worst part is he’s RIGHT. It was what he was made for. And he dosent have that anymore. He’s not powerless, far from. But he dosent have a purpose now. He gets yelled at and blamed for doing what he was made for. He’s closer to a NPC than a ringmaster. Is Cain even sentient? How do you mess up so bad you made an AI have mental health issues 😭🙏🏾 Ragatha and Cain are more similar the more I think about it. They both have evil counterparts. Both determines there self worth too Ragathas ability to help people and Cain when making adventures. They’re handling it differently Ofcourse bc Cain really never had to face his issues. He’s be reminded but would distract himself just as easily. And it worked.

once more caine is my second favorite and he's not safe from my wrath . reminder that he was imprisoned for three days before being freed

gummigoo has proven that ai in the circus can achieve Some level of sentience , so there is that . i try to fall under a gray area for my interpretation of caine though because he's just a lot more fun when he feels more ai than human . besides as a weird creature with low empathy i find him a Big mood and i am supporting him in his journey of learning cognitive empathy

and yeah caine and ragatha both fall under the same umbrella of being goofy people pleasers that would Rather be found dead in a river than face uncomfortable emotions head-on — mostly because doing that will lead to their demise . i personally do not think that caine is forcing himself to be happy though — i think he just suffers from the brass goggles-esque problem of having a range of emotions so limited that he can't really comprehend it whenever he has to face with anything beyond that ( example : his ongoing obliviousness to the suffering of everyone in the circus ) . so when he himself has to face it internally , he just . overloads .

he's not made to be a complex ai he's just a little guy creating fun adventures !!!!!!! help him !!!!!!!

[star-studded-whales]

The new statement from nanowrimo is really something

“Supporting and uplifting writers is at the heart of what we do. Our stated mission is “to provide the structure, community, and encouragement to help people use their voices, achieve creative goals, and build new worlds—on and off the page”. Our comments last month were prompted by intense harassment and bullying we were seeing on our social media channels, which specifically involved AI. When our spaces become overwhelmed with issues that don’t relate to our core offering, and that are venomous in tone, our ability to cheer on writers is seriously derailed.”

The cognitive dissonance required to make a statement like this baffles me.

“We’re supporting and uplifting writers by promoting the plagiarism machine, and you’re bullying us!”

Respectfully, the statements about AI were completely unprompted on nanowrimo’s part. The gall to accuse writers of distracting from nano’s “core purpose” when they’re the ones who sold out to AI is astounding. Like, you can’t make an extremely controversial public statement about AI to a community of creatives that have not ever reacted well to AI, and get upset when they take issue with it.

[ceoandslutler]

what even was this post on my home page

1) pedophilia and grooming are tragic irl phenomena. a fictional child being sexualised does not make anyone a pedophile. ships aren't "grooming". let's stop throwing that word around. let's not equate that crime to fictional thoughts. 1984 thought police behaviour atp. and this is coming from someone who doesn't write or consume fictional underage content.

2) this is just such a gross* mischaracterisation and generalisation of sebaciel shippers.

*gross as in the german word for utter/complete, not as in disgusting. which btw, extremely disrespectful to call other people "revolting" over... *checks notes* ..fictional ships

it's so rude and all kinds of presumptuous to assume some people have lesser cognitive ability than you to critically analyse a work simply because they see the main pairing that the creator is trying to promote in a romantic or sexual way. im not even a big fan of o!ciel being sexualised but the manga literally does it—why are we acting like the people who see it are delusional or stupid? the way this person's first post is alienating a part of the fandom by implying they're dumb just for shipping something..? is crazy. our analysis tags are full, we're not all writing porn 24/7 and EVEN IF SOME OF US ARE?? hello??? everyone in this fandom should accept the source material is extremely sexually charged. even non sbcl shippers are often writing/drawing sexually charged scenes either canon or fanon. anyway no reason to generalise people like this.

3) comparing the work of yana toboso to stories with intense sexual themes then acting like sebaciel shippers are the unhinged ones who are "scrap[ping] off any sort of character between those two and us[ing] them for their fetish niche fantasies" is a little wild. do you not realise those works are all disturbing and most of them sexually violent?

here's some proof in case anyone doesn't know those stories very well: frankenstein (sexual violence as a form of power/revenge), dracula (despite its queer themes, ultimately women's death is portrayed as something beautiful), even in wuthering heights (literally fetishistic sadomasochism)

like come on. are we being serious? sebaciel is the problem..?? you read all that and missed the fetishism and bdsm and rape/sexual violence?? or is it somehow okay if those works do it? but not if sebaciel shippers write about this stuff? why the double standard

4) it's really funny to me how they acknowledge care between sebaciel and somehow it's sebaciel shippers who are delusional. im sorry but not even most sebaciel shippers have such a simplified view of sebaciel; poetic as it sounds, "broken boy and heartless demon" is such a mischaracterisation of them. i don't care how anyone sees them but come ON, you can't criticise other people and call their behaviour "truly revolting" (!!) over a ship and then have such an infantile view of the characters.

5) "consummation of the contract"

nothing more to say. this has to be the craziest first post of a blog i have ever seen. please don't go looking for this person, they just said some funny things that i had to point out.

anyway same person's stance on generative AI... take from that what you will.

[howlsofbloodhounds]

Idk if u answered this before but would color have social media

cause idk why but I find it funny as hell that they would know brainrot and the souls would be laughing about it so much

I personally don’t think he’d be on social media much, at least not compared to Epic or Killer.

He’d definitely have a phone and probably has a few games and social media apps downloaded, like Tumblr mainly because he likes the stimboards and looking at posts about his interests, probably has YouTube.

I can only see him having TikTok because Killer and Epic kept sending him videos via text messages that he could never watch because he didn’t have the app downloaded.

Other than that, I think not only is Color very behind on recent apps, trends, memes, etc. due to his decades of isolation and having to figure out how to operate and adjust to technology again (especially recently developed technology that he might’ve missed out on during his time in the Void), but I also don’t think he spends much time on his phone except during periods where he felt too alone and isolated (during his time in the hospital perhaps) and during the period where his and Killer’s friendship was still developing during Killer’s time under Nightmare.

I’m considering the idea that maybe lurking on social media apps, not doing anything but watching videos and reading comments or just silently watching other people talk to each other in discord servers or group chats, could potentially help Color feel less alone without the overwhelm and stress of having to physically be around people before his mind and body has time to adjust to it.

But there’s also the possibility that lurking in group chats and not being acknowledged because he’s not chiming in to chat—or worse, deciding to chime in and being ignored—could trigger an episode of derealization in him.

He can’t see, touch, or even hear the people that’s supposedly behind the screens and typing those messages—he has no proof they’re actually real. He has no proof that his existence is still real, and that he hasn’t been forgotten or erased again.

These times are probably when he needs to take breaks from social media, from his phone, and try to find a way to ground himself before he spirals into a panic attack or an episode of psychosis.

On top of this, with time still moving on while he was in the Void and there being no technology during his time in captivity—and very little activities to do to keep his mind and body active—not only would Color be very far behind in technological advancements, but he may struggle with cognitive decline—such as memory degeneration or struggle with memory retrieval.

So even if he’s handed a phone he knew existed before he fell into the Void—even if he knows that he understood how to use this phone before—he’ll still struggle to recall how to use it.

Skills require reinforcement. Without practice, even basic technological skills (like using a phone, typing, or navigating software) could deteriorate. If he used to code, edit videos, or operate specific devices, those abilities might be rusty or completely forgotten.

Without the mental exercise of problem-solving daily issues (which technology often requires), their ability to “figure things out” could be impaired.

He might experience anxiety or frustration when encountering technology, feeling overwhelmed by how much they don’t understand.

Phones, computers, smart assistants, AR/VR, and even basic interfaces would feel foreign. He might not immediately understand touchscreen gestures, biometric security (face ID, fingerprint scanning), or AI assistants.

With social media platforms, he wouldn’t understand what’s popular, how they work, or digital etiquette. They might not recognize how entertainment has shifted from DVDs or early internet platforms to on-demand streaming.

Entire ways of communicating—like meme culture, slang, internet trends—may be lost on him. Multi-factor authentication, encryption, and cybersecurity concerns would be unfamiliar.

They may not understand how to navigate digital privacy, potentially making him vulnerable to scams or data exploitation. He might expect direct phone calls rather than texting or social media messaging.

Emojis, GIFs, and shorthand might be confusing or seem meaningless to them. Color might begin to feel frustrated and alienated, feeling like a “time traveler” thrown into a world he doesn’t understand, struggling to keep up.

They may resist using modern technology due to intimidation or resentment. He could avoid it as much as possible, or even grow to develop Technophobia.

The sheer speed and saturation of digital life (ads, notifications, video content, instant access to information) might be too much at once—and Color could struggle with overwhelm and sensory overload, the stress leading to episodes of dissociation.

He might try to make a call but not understand why payphones no longer exist or how smartphones work. He might struggle to use a self-checkout machine because he expected cashiers.

He might not recognize voice-activated AI assistants like Siri or Alexa, thinking a person is speaking to them. He might find modern websites overly cluttered and overwhelming compared to the simpler internet he knew.

He might get lost in a city because he expected to read paper maps rather than use GPS apps. He might feel isolated in conversations when people reference digital culture, memes, or slang he doesnt understand.

They might have an emotional reaction to something like facial recognition or biometric security, feeling watched or controlled.

They’d need gradual reintroduction to prevent overwhelm. Someone patient would need to walk him through even basic things like using a phone or searching online.

He might prefer physical books, notes, and manual methods rather than digital alternatives at first. If he focuses too much on how far behind they are, it could fuel self-loathing or despair.

This could be a deeply frustrating and alienating experience, reinforcing the sense that the world moved on without him.

On top of all this, too, is the fact that 1. he is a Sans alternate timeline, therefore he likely ‘grew up’ Underground and only had access to whatever technology fell from the Surface intact or whatever was able to be scavenged and repurposed, and 2. he has the souls of human children inside him.

He can potentially be effected by their knowledge of things on the Surface and human culture based on their what they’re able to tell him, show him, what he dreams about (potentially souls’ memories), or even if something triggers one of the souls and he sees whatever they’re remembering.

Taking further into account that not only have the souls been removed from the rest of the world for about two decades like Color has, but they were removed from the Surface and human world for even longer via being locked away in jars.

On top of that, it all depends on what year the souls were born and what year they Fell/were killed, and how far apart the six of them were. One soul might know something about technology none of the others do, because the other souls either weren’t born yet or died before getting to know.

[jcmarchi]

LLMs Are Not Reasoning—They’re Just Really Good at Planning

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/llms-are-not-reasoning-theyre-just-really-good-at-planning/

LLMs Are Not Reasoning—They’re Just Really Good at Planning

Large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s o3, Google’s Gemini 2.0, and DeepSeek’s R1 have shown remarkable progress in tackling complex problems, generating human-like text, and even writing code with precision. These advanced LLMs are often referred as “reasoning models” for their remarkable abilities to analyze and solve complex problems. But do these models actually reason, or are they just exceptionally good at planning? This distinction is subtle yet profound, and it has major implications for how we understand the capabilities and limitations of LLMs.

To understand this distinction, let’s compare two scenarios:

Reasoning: A detective investigating a crime must piece together conflicting evidence, deduce which ones are false, and arrive at a conclusion based on limited evidence. This process involves inference, contradiction resolution, and abstract thinking.

Planning: A chess player calculating the best sequence of moves to checkmate their opponent.

While both processes involve multiple steps, the detective engages in deep reasoning to make inferences, evaluate contradictions, and apply general principles to a specific case. The chess player, on the other hand, is primarily engaging in planning, selecting an optimal sequence of moves to win the game. LLMs, as we will see, function much more like the chess player than the detective.

Understanding the Difference: Reasoning vs. Planning

To realize why LLMs are good at planning rather than reasoning, it is important to first understand the difference between both terms. Reasoning is the process of deriving new conclusions from given premises using logic and inference. It involves identifying and correcting inconsistencies, generating novel insights rather than just providing information, making decisions in ambiguous situations, and engaging in causal understanding and counterfactual thinking like “What if?” scenarios.

Planning, on the other hand, focuses on structuring a sequence of actions to achieve a specific goal. It relies on breaking complex tasks into smaller steps, following known problem-solving strategies, adapting previously learned patterns to similar problems, and executing structured sequences rather than deriving new insights. While both reasoning and planning involve step-by-step processing, reasoning requires deeper abstraction and inference, whereas planning follows established procedures without generating fundamentally new knowledge.

How LLMs Approach “Reasoning”

Modern LLMs, such as OpenAI’s o3 and DeepSeek-R1, are equipped with a technique, known as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, to improve their problem-solving abilities. This method encourages models to break problems down into intermediate steps, mimicking the way humans think through a problem logically. To see how it works, consider a simple math problem:

If a store sells apples for $2 each but offers a discount of $1 per apple if you buy more than 5 apples, how much would 7 apples cost?

A typical LLM using CoT prompting might solve it like this:

Determine the regular price: 7 * $2 = $14.

Identify that the discount applies (since 7 > 5).

Compute the discount: 7 * $1 = $7.

Subtract the discount from the total: $14 – $7 = $7.

By explicitly laying out a sequence of steps, the model minimizes the chance of errors that arise from trying to predict an answer in one go. While this step-by-step breakdown makes LLMs look like reasoning, it is essentially a form of structured problem-solving, much like following a step-by-step recipe. On the other hand, a true reasoning process might recognize a general rule: If the discount applies beyond 5 apples, then every apple costs $1. A human can infer such a rule immediately, but an LLM cannot as it simply follows a structured sequence of calculations.

Why Chain-of-thought is Planning, Not Reasoning

While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has improved LLMs’ performance on logic-oriented tasks like math word problems and coding challenges, it does not involve genuine logical reasoning. This is because, CoT follows procedural knowledge, relying on structured steps rather than generating novel insights. It lacks a true understanding of causality and abstract relationships, meaning the model does not engage in counterfactual thinking or consider hypothetical situations that require intuition beyond seen data. Additionally, CoT cannot fundamentally change its approach beyond the patterns it has been trained on, limiting its ability to reason creatively or adapt in unfamiliar scenarios.

What Would It Take for LLMs to Become True Reasoning Machines?

So, what do LLMs need to truly reason like humans? Here are some key areas where they require improvement and potential approaches to achieve it:

Symbolic Understanding: Humans reason by manipulating abstract symbols and relationships. LLMs, however, lack a genuine symbolic reasoning mechanism. Integrating symbolic AI or hybrid models that combine neural networks with formal logic systems could enhance their ability to engage in true reasoning.

Causal Inference: True reasoning requires understanding cause and effect, not just statistical correlations. A model that reasons must infer underlying principles from data rather than merely predicting the next token. Research into causal AI, which explicitly models cause-and-effect relationships, could help LLMs transition from planning to reasoning.

Self-Reflection and Metacognition: Humans constantly evaluate their own thought processes by asking “Does this conclusion make sense?” LLMs, on the other hand, do not have a mechanism for self-reflection. Building models that can critically evaluate their own outputs would be a step toward true reasoning.

Common Sense and Intuition: Even though LLMs have access to vast amounts of knowledge, they often struggle with basic common-sense reasoning. This happens because they don’t have real-world experiences to shape their intuition, and they can’t easily recognize the absurdities that humans would pick up on right away. They also lack a way to bring real-world dynamics into their decision-making. One way to improve this could be by building a model with a common-sense engine, which might involve integrating real-world sensory input or using knowledge graphs to help the model better understand the world the way humans do.

Counterfactual Thinking: Human reasoning often involves asking, “What if things were different?” LLMs struggle with these kinds of “what if” scenarios because they’re limited by the data they’ve been trained on. For models to think more like humans in these situations, they would need to simulate hypothetical scenarios and understand how changes in variables can impact outcomes. They would also need a way to test different possibilities and come up with new insights, rather than just predicting based on what they’ve already seen. Without these abilities, LLMs can’t truly imagine alternative futures—they can only work with what they’ve learned.

Conclusion

While LLMs may appear to reason, they are actually relying on planning techniques for solving complex problems. Whether solving a math problem or engaging in logical deduction, they are primarily organizing known patterns in a structured manner rather than deeply understanding the principles behind them. This distinction is crucial in AI research because if we mistake sophisticated planning for genuine reasoning, we risk overestimating AI’s true capabilities.

The road to true reasoning AI will require fundamental advancements beyond token prediction and probabilistic planning. It will demand breakthroughs in symbolic logic, causal understanding, and metacognition. Until then, LLMs will remain powerful tools for structured problem-solving, but they will not truly think in the way humans do.

[hyperfixate-on-ninjas]

Subject: Jay Walker The Lone Performer

Mental State: Unstable

Power Level: Apocalyptic

Danger Level: High (What would you expect from the Master of Lightning?)

Abilities:

Lightning/Electricity Manipulation:

As the Master of Lightning, The Lone Performer has dominion over the power of Lightning.

Electrokinesis:

As seen with the Realm of Madness, The Lone Performer can manipulate the electricity of Technology to his command, possibly even manipulating the code within the Tech. Though being able to power and control an entire realm might be draining no matter how much of a power boost or how much training one might have. [Must have something to do with the giant mech behind the main stage] This can range to him being able to control robots and technological weapons to straight up manipulating AIs. Might be one of the reasons The False Prophet hasn’t moved from his area despite the Cloud Kingdom literally being a moving Realm.

Projection:

Despite the uncanny realism The Lone Performer’s form on-stage is a hologram similar to how my Photac designs were made with hard light. [Though the hologram seems to be made of a different type of hard light? Or am I just imagining it?] unlike the Photac projections the Lone Performer seems to simulate the very consciousness of Jay, to an uncanny degree. Almost as if it was an actual projection of him. [Maybe it is] Smaller versions of this ‘holographic self’ acts like a standard AI trapped in screens. Usually for advertisements and news reports and… [Who am I kidding he practically took over the whole Realm]

Psychic Electricity Manipulation:

[Personally I call this ‘Cognitive Electricity Manipulation’ but there was some disagreements with the name.] The Lone Performer has the ability to manipulate electricity through the brain, though from what I could gather he only does it to people on small amounts mostly to perform a memory wipe or alteration. Effects of this can be permanent from what I could gather…it’s really not recommended to alter the brain really…[To think he learned this himself though…that should mean he knows which neurons to target? If so I didn’t take Jay for a neurologist…Unless the Administration had access to knowledge of the brain…which could explain his previous memory loss.]

This also explains how he’s able to keep track of everyone who’s within the Realm of Madness… [Implying something is powering him because doing that with an entire Realm is exhausting, this guy has to have some limits.]

Nerve Manipulation:

[Wyldefyre called this one ‘Nerve Damage’ I think it’s funny.] Along with being able to control the brain he can control people’s nerves. [Feeling that for the first time was awful] He also has the ability to cause the nerves to explode.

[See! Nerve Damage] Bit of a warning this type of manipulation is quite painful to feel…unless of course you’re The Lone Performer himself. According to [REDACTED] Jay had high pain tolerance to the point he was able to control his own nerves…though he did imply he doesn’t know when he had learned that ability.

Heart Stop:

Can stop the nerves within the heart or the electricity flowing through it. [Cool] [Wyldefyre that could kill you]

Motive: ??? [Possible: Preservation, Control and Forced Compliance]

The Lone Performer has direct ties with The Emperor, possibly he’s following under his orders…though I find it odd…he doesn’t seem like the type to follow orders like that under normal circumstances…

Location: Realm of Madness.

Status: The Lone Performer continues his act. However one look into those manic eyes tells you he doesn’t particularly enjoy it.

Caution: Do not under any circumstances trespass into his lands. The Lone Performer has direct communication with The Emperor and must not be provoked. A Mini-Pix has already been stationed to observe the city, there is no need to intervene any further. DO NOT ENGAGE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

OOC: I’ve changed the Zane files to match the liveliness of this file. Since the main characters are Sora, Arin and Wyldfyre.

Some headcanons are inspired by @pillowdrawz and @writing-hat

Prev

Next