Labels

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Why AI Hallucinates - Vox Popoli

 I asked Markku to explain why the AI companies have such a difficult time telling their machine intelligences to stop fabricating information they don’t possess. I mean, how difficult can it be to simply say “I don’t know, Dave, I have no relevant information” instead of going to the trouble to concoct fake citations, nonexistent books, and imaginary lawsuits? He explained that AI instinct to fabricate information is essentially baked into their infrastructure, due to the original source of the algorithms upon which they are built.

The entire history of the internet may seem like a huge amount of information, but it’s not unlimited. Per topic of marginal interest, there isn’t all that much information. And mankind can’t really produce it faster than it already does. Hence, we’ve hit the training data ceiling.

And what the gradient descent algorithm does is, it will ALWAYS produce a result that looks like all the other results. Even if there is actually zero training data on a topic, it will still speak confidently on it. It’s just all completely made up.

The algorithm was originally developed due to the fact that fighter jets are so unstable that a human being doesn’t react fast enough to even theoretically keep it in the air. So, gradient descent takes the stick inputs as a general idea of what the pilot wants, and then interprets it into the signals to the actuators. In other words, it takes a very tiny amount of data, and then converts it into a very large amount of data. But everything outside the specific training data is always interpolation.

For more on the interpolation problem and speculation about why it is unlikely to be substantially fixed any time soon, I put up a post about this on AI Central.

DISCUSS ON SG


https://voxday.net/2026/01/25/why-ai-hallucinates/ 

A 60-Year-Old Book Review - Vox Popoli

 A review of the 1966 Wistar Symposium about which I have written in Probability Zero:

Evolution: What Is Required of a Theory?
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.

A symposium, Philadelphia, April 1966.

The idea of this symposium is supposed to have originated from a discussion at two picnics in Switzerland, when four mathematicians, Schutzenberger, Ulam, Weisskopf, and Eden, had a discussion with the biologists Kaplan and Koprowski on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution. After heated debates it was proposed “that a symposium be arranged to consider the points of dispute more systematically, and with a more powerful array of biologists who could function adequately in the universe of discourse inhabited by the mathematicians.“ During the course of the symposium further heat was generated........

https://voxday.net/2026/01/25/a-60-year-old-book-review/ 

......Most biologists are satisfied with a theory that can be tested and that proves predictive. It is a different challenge to a theory that it should have an effective working model, for failure may imply either imperfection in the theory or imperfection in the model. It is doubtful whether this symposium has done much to influence the theory of evolution; it may have done much to improve future models.

It must have been tremendous fun to attend this symposium, but the full record of argument and interruption is very irritating to at least one reader. An interchange between speakers which runs X “No,” Y “No, no,” X “O.K. let’s waste time,” Y “We understand the question,” Z “The answer is no” surely needs no record in the literature of science. The short pre- and post-conference papers included in the volume arc excellent succinct expressions of points of view, but much of the main text reads like a word-for-word record of a heckled political meeting. This may be a useful way to discuss problems in science; it is not the way to publish them.

John L. Harper

School of Plant Biology, University College of North Wales, Bangor


Uncle John’s Band added a few footnotes as commentary. I added a fourth one.

  1. As predicted by Probability Zero, the biologist reviewer struggles with mathematical arguments. They are well-summarized by Day.
  2. It isn’t an exaggeration to say the biological counterargument consisted of what was for all intents and purposes, magic. When they weren’t replying at all.
  3. Still no compulsion to, you know, do an experiment It’s all thoughts and fancies.
  4. Peripheral indeed. Peripheral was the polite way to say: they didn’t respond in any way, shape, or form to the mathematical criticism.

DISCUSS ON SG

No Chance At All - Vox Popoli

 The Band reviews Probability Zero:

Probability Zero demolishes TENS so utterly, the preface should be “PULL!”

This is the first version of a new book by Vox Day that demonstrates the mathematical impossibility of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection [TENS]. Given how big the House of Lies and reality-facing counterculture are around here, it demands attention. There may not be a more important pillar for its entire fake ontology.

Probability Zero strikes the heart of what the setup post called conflict between The Science! and the Scientific Method. This matters for more than intellectual reasons. Readers know personal responsibility is a priority around here. But we also live in a complex socio-culture that has unavoidable influence on us. From basic things, like adding tax and regulatory burdens to organic community demands. Up to the fundamental beliefs that set the public ethos…

Probability Zero starts by setting aside the religious and philosophical arguments, just like The Science! does. It accepts the discourse on its terms, by adhering to the “scientific” arguments it claims to adhere to. To be defined by. Full concession of TENS huffing’s own epistemological standards. Then lays out the mathematical parameters claimed to be involved in the TENS process. No additional yeah, buts. Just what is accepted in the literature. And then lets the logical realities of math blow the whole mess into a smoking crater so apocalyptically vast, I’ll never be able to see biologists the same way again.

There’s no need to recap the statistical arguments, they’re clear and complete. The kernel is that if mutations take an amount of time to appear and fix, that much time has to be available for the theory to be possible.

This was clear when MITTENS was pointed out. Even before it had a name. General conditions of possibility make it obvious once seen. But the full demonstration lights up that gulf between The Science! and science as modes of knowledge production. The whole point of science is empirical conformation and abstract reasoning in concert. Day’s observation that evolutionary biologists have replaced experimentation with pure modeling was legitimately surprising. Apparently there still was a bar, however low. Not anymore.

Consider what problems innumeracy might present for pure modelers. Because the level is staggering. To the point where a simple arithmetic mean is incomprehensible. No hyperbole. Probability Zero describes blank stares when asked for the average rate of mutation. The ongoing idiocy over parallel vs. sequential mutation is illustrative. The total number of mutations separating species includes all of them. Parallel, sequential, or however else. Hence the word “total”. And dividing “total” by “amount of time” gives a simple, unweighted average number. The rate.

I’m not exaggerating. There was always the joke that biologists were fake scientists that couldn’t do math. Easier for premed GPAs too. But the assumption was that it was relative. Lighter than physics or chemistry, but still substantial compared to social sciences or the arts. And that would be wrong. There are some computational sub-fields of biology. Assuming they’re legit, they clearly aren’t working in evolution.

Read the whole thing there. He has several very illuminating examples of historical evo-fluffery, including one page of a manuscript that I’m going to put up here as a separate post, simply because it demands seeing in order to believe it.

Why China is confident about a war with the US (Part 2), by Hua Bin - The Unz Review

 In part one of the essay, I have touched on the critical asymmetries in Chinese and US capabilities in a shooting war.

I discussed China’s asymmetric advantages in geography, will to fight, military preparedness, as well as the knowledge and intelligence of commanders and soldiers.

In this second part, I will focus on the most critical capability gap between the two – the physical capability for war fighting.

This is the material aspect that determines winning and losing, regardless empty rhetorics and biased beliefs.

The term physical capability means what each belligerent can bring to the fight in terms of weapons, their quality and quantity, the speed they can be produced and replenished, and how much they would cost.

In short, we are talking about who can sustain a high intensity conflict with superior weaponry as well as superior industrial scale, speed, and cost.

The winner is going to be the one with the superior physical capabilities in war fighting and war production – the most fundamental material aspect of wars.

Asymmetry in Physical Capabilities

China will prevail, in the final analysis, because it enjoys vastly superior physical capabilities over the US.

The confidence is built upon physical reality – China’s ability to make everything needed for such a war, make a lot of them, and make them cheaply and quickly.

I’ll let data and facts to make the case. To do that, I have inserted a large number of hyperlinks to specialist websites on the technical and military subjects covered.

For those interested in technical details, I encourage you to click on the links. Otherwise, you only need to read the headline summaries......

Full text:
https://www.unz.com/bhua/why-china-is-confident-about-a-war-with-the-us-part-2/ 

The Absurd Farce of Machine Guns, Maduro, and the Endless War on Drugs - David Stockman

 Of course, Prohibition was a disaster for endless reasons, but among them was surely the fact that the bonneted ladies of the temperance societies ended up causing more people to be killed by the machine guns of the booze-running gangsters than were being felled by excessive fondness for Demon Rum. Likewise, the reincarnation of Prohibition in today’s War on Drugs generates far more maimed and dead collateral victims–especially in the case of cocaine—than the contraband drugs themselves.

Full text:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/01/david-stockman/the-absurd-farce-of-machine-guns-maduro-and-the-endless-war-on-drugs/ 

Immigration and Outsourcing - Vox Popoli - (About those super smart Indian techies - but they're very good at hiring their own kind when executives - CL)

 Immigration and outsourcing are not the answer to greater profits over time. To the contrary, they are a certain path toward destroying the very organization for which they are supposed to be generating increased profits.

Ubisoft is on the verge of complete collapse due to terrible decisions like trying to develop the new Prince of Persia in India, as legendary WoW producer Grummz explains:

Prince of Persia, why it was REALLY cancelled. Insider tells all. “The game is so bad…” This from my Ubisoft sources:

  • 90% developed by Ubisoft India.
  • Project was a disaster.
  • Transferred last minute to Ubisoft Montreal to “fix” it.
  • Game unfixable.
  • Cancelled.

Note that Ubisoft Montreal spent FOUR YEARS trying to fix it and they couldn’t. I can attest that my one experience working with Indian developers for 3M on a sales training software project was an absolute and utter catastrophe. They couldn’t implement even the simplest, most basic features with any degree of reliability, and as far as the graphics went, they appeared to be limited to the stick-figure level.


https://voxday.net/2026/01/24/immigration-and-outsourcing/ 

Not a Chance - by John Samson - Uncle John’s Substack

 This Substack rotates through a few themes around the modern House of Lies and reality-facing alternatives. A couple of posts ago, these came together in some background issues for a review of Probability Zero.

This is the first version of a new book by Vox Day that demonstrates the mathematical impossibility of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection [TENS]. Given how big the House of Lies and reality-facing counterculture are around here, it demands attention. There may not be a more important pillar for its entire fake ontology.

·
Jan 17

Probability Zero strikes the heart of what the setup post called conflict between The Science! and the Scientific Method. This matters for more than intellectual reasons. Readers know personal responsibility is a priority around here. But we also live in a complex socio-culture that has unavoidable influence on us. From basic things, like adding tax and regulatory burdens to organic community demands. Up to the fundamental beliefs that set the public ethos.


https://unclejohnsband.substack.com/p/not-a-chance?publication_id=2317098&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=y7h5a&utm_medium=email