The AI That Cried "Eureka!"

The irony is just *chef's kiss*! ChatGPT politely explaining why Hinton and Hopfield (neural network pioneers) can't win the Physics Nobel while completely missing that it's literally correcting a fake image IT generated! The AI is fact-checking itself without realizing it created the "facts" in the first place. Talk about digital inception - the AI version of arguing with your own reflection in the mirror! Even funnier considering Geoffrey Hinton is actually known as the "Godfather of AI" who later warned about AI risks. The machine is questioning its own creation while demonstrating exactly why we should be careful with AI-generated content!

Content Finally found a paper that addresses exactly the research questions I have been investigating for so long. It's paywalled (and not available from alternative sources either) ingtip.com

The classic "preparing for AI overlords" protocol. Scientists spend decades warning about robust AI alignment, and here we are, hedging our bets with basic politeness. Because clearly, when superintelligent machines inevitably take over, they'll implement a "spared from extinction" whitelist based on who typed "thank u" instead of just pressing the button. It's basically the digital equivalent of leaving milk out for the fae. Not that I'm saying it won't work. I've been ending all my emails to my smart thermostat with "warmest regards" for years now.

The kitten's journey from "hehe" to "not hehe" perfectly captures the reality check many CS students face when diving into AI. Sure, everyone wants to build the next ChatGPT, until they realize modern AI requires understanding complex physics concepts like the Fokker-Planck equation (which describes how probability distributions evolve in stochastic systems) and Brownian motion (the random movement of particles in fluid). The diffusion models powering today's coolest AI? They're basically sophisticated physics simulations. That CS major who thought they were escaping differential equations by ditching physics is in for a rude awakening! The irony is absolutely *chef's kiss* - turns out you can't escape Max Planck after all.

Calling AI "Schrödinger's Code" is painfully accurate. Your program simultaneously works and doesn't work until you run it. And even after observation, it might collapse into a different state when you show it to your supervisor. Much like quantum superposition, AI exists in multiple states of functionality—brilliantly solving problems one minute, then hallucinating that Nebraska is a coastal state the next. The uncertainty principle of programming: you can know what your code is supposed to do, or what it actually does, but never both at the same time.

Robot parent taking their robot child to a museum, pointing at a human brain: "And that is the original processor!" Just imagine future AI taking field trips to see the wetware that inspired their silicon existence. The irony of our neural networks becoming museum exhibits for the very technology they created. Evolution comes full circle - from carbon to silicon and back to carbon appreciation.