#Coaching, #Transformation (#Agile), #DesignThinking, Sociology & Economy (#AntiFragility), #CognitiveBias, #nvc #NonDuality, #LiberatingStructures @H_O_L_O_
Paris, nantes, Aljezur
Joined March 2009
- Tweets3.1K
- Following177
- Followers596
- Likes4.9K
When an AI writes both the code and its tests, a green CI mostly proves that the code agrees with itself, and it tells you nothing about the AI being “creative” behind your back.
when I iterate fast, am I free of undue side effects and hidden surprises?
luctaesch.substack.com/p/vib…
luc taesch retweeted
L'eau courante est une catastrophe. Avant, il fallait marcher jusqu'au puits pour chercher de l'eau. Au moins, on faisait de l'exercice.
Absurde? C'est pourtant le type de raisonnement qu'on entend aujourd'hui à propos de l'intelligence artificielle.
L'IA nous dispense de certains efforts intellectuels? Mais ces efforts nous permettaient de développer notre intelligence! Elle nous évite de passer des heures à chercher des informations? Mais cette recherche était formatrice! Elle nous aide à écrire? Mais écrire soi-même permet de structurer sa pensée!
Tout cela est vrai. Mais le raisonnement est trompeur.
Je propose de l'appeler le sophisme de l'effort perdu. Il consiste à reprocher à une technologie de supprimer les bénéfices secondaires d'un effort devenu inutile grâce à elle.
À ce compte-là, il faudrait renoncer à la machine à laver, qui nous prive d'exercice physique, à la calculatrice, qui nous dispense du calcul mental, et même à l'écriture, qui nous évite de tout mémoriser.
Et pourquoi s'arrêter là? Retournons dans les cavernes. La vie y était difficile, mais quelle formidable école de débrouillardise, de résistance physique et d'ingéniosité! Et aussi quelle ambiance chaleureuse avec les gens proches les uns des autres!
Le sophisme de l'effort perdu repose sur une confusion entre l'objectif d'une activité et les bénéfices collatéraux des moyens employés pour l'atteindre.
Bien sûr, ces bénéfices peuvent être précieux. L'effort intellectuel est nécessaire pour apprendre à penser. Mais faut-il pour autant préserver toutes les tâches intellectuelles pénibles sous prétexte qu'elles nous font réfléchir?
La vraie question n'est pas de savoir comment conserver les efforts que la technologie nous épargne, mais comment préserver les capacités auxquelles nous tenons sans avoir à conserver ces efforts.
Après tout, nous n'avons pas renoncé à l'exercice physique avec l'arrivée de l'eau courante. Nous avons inventé le sport.
Avec l'IA, le défi est du même ordre: il ne s'agit pas de défendre les détours, mais de trouver de nouvelles façons de développer ce qu'ils nous apportaient.
We can’t safely automate what we can’t verify, and we can’t verify what no human is paying attention to
6/ Verification infrastructure is how we counter all this. So is "attention ergonomics" (see @sschillace's piece, H/T @livjenkss).
🚨 We can’t safely automate what we can’t verify, and we can’t verify what no human is paying attention to.
luc taesch retweeted
Introducing Open Collider: an open-source engine that mechanically improves LLM creativity.
It generates non-trivial, high-quality ideas at scale, for any ideation problem.
LLMs collapse on the same ideas. Sample the same brief 100 times → most outputs land in the same place. Researchers call it the Artificial Hivemind (Jiang et al., 2025).
"Be more creative" moves the LLM's output by ~0.04 in embedding space.
Forcing structurally distant domain collisions moves it by ~0.28.
7× more. Same model, same brief.
So I built Open Collider: a pipeline based on the theory of bisociations (Koestler 1964), the same model that drives human creativity.
📊 Across 12 real-world ideation problems:
• 12/12 sign-test wins on embedding distance (p = .0002)
• 60%+ originality wins on 4,320 blind LLM-judge verdicts
• 4–13× further from the default cloud than "be original" prompts or longer context
• Idea relevance holds (win rate >50% on overall quality)
💻 Engine: first reply 👇
📝 Launch study: pinned tweet
Try it, Break it, Tell me what you find!
luc taesch retweeted
Terence Tao is the greatest living mathematician.
Fields Medal at 31. Solved problems that had been open for a century. Widely regarded as the sharpest analytical mind alive.
And he just told you the thing your entire career is built on is now worthless.
Tao: “AI has basically driven the cost of idea generation down to almost zero.”
For five hundred years, the idea was the prize.
The theory. The hypothesis. The flash of insight a physicist chased for twenty years in a lab before it landed.
That was the bottleneck. That was what tenure rewarded. That was what Nobel committees were looking for.
Gone.
A model can generate a thousand candidate theories for a scientific problem in an afternoon. Not noise. Not garbage. Plausible, structured, publishable-grade hypotheses.
A thousand of them. Before dinner.
The idea used to be the scarcest resource in any room.
Now it is the cheapest.
But Tao went somewhere most people are not ready to follow.
Tao: “Verification, validation, and assessing what ideas actually move the subject forward… that’s not something we know how to do at scale.”
Sit with that.
We automated creation.
We did not automate truth.
We can produce ten thousand explanations for a phenomenon.
We cannot tell you which ones are real.
That is not a gap. That is a chasm.
And it is the most important unsolved problem on Earth right now.
Tao: “Human reviewers… they’re already being overwhelmed actually.”
The entire scientific apparatus was built for a world where a single paper took months to produce.
Peer review. Journal boards. Consensus forged over years of replication and debate.
That infrastructure was never designed for what just hit it.
Journals are flooded. Reviewers are buried. The filters that separated signal from noise for decades were engineered for human-speed output.
They are now absorbing machine-speed volume.
And they are cracking under it.
Tao compared it to the internet.
The internet drove the cost of communication to zero. That did not produce clarity. It produced an ocean of noise with islands of signal buried somewhere inside.
AI just did the same thing to knowledge itself.
Infinite generation. Zero verification.
The person who can produce ideas has never mattered less.
The person who can prove which ideas are true has never mattered more.
That is the inversion nobody is processing.
Every company, every lab, every institution is racing to generate more. Faster models. Bigger outputs. More theories. More code. More content.
Nobody is building the system that tells you which of those outputs are actually correct.
And that is the only system that matters.
Whoever solves verification at scale does not win a market.
They become the filter that all of science, all of engineering, all of human discovery flows through.
The bottleneck of the last five hundred years was producing the answer.
The bottleneck of the next fifty is knowing whether the answer is real.
And right now, according to the greatest mathematician alive, we do not know how to do that at the speed the machines demand.
That is not a research problem.
That is the race beneath the race.
And almost nobody has entered it.
Tired of Drifting aimlessly ? Are you even aware of it ?
linkedin.com/pulse/soloprene…
Drift is the new danger.
Safety didn’t get safer—it got blinder. Action detonates clarity.
Read the field manual
luclucid.substack.com/p/play…
Willpower isn’t your problem.
If everything is possible, nothing is urgent.
Shrink the game. Define “done.” Start ugly.
The rest follows: luclucid.substack.com/p/trap…
you realised that the transformation only happens through action.
you know what to do : you have a plan, a strategy
and you dont do it .
sounds Logic ?
why ?
luclucid.substack.com/p/unlo…
AI Costs Slashed 20x: Pros Win Big, Freeloaders Lose Hard
AI just got 20x cheaper overnight—game-changer alert!
Grok-4 Fast crushes the base model's pricing—20x less for similar power
Watch GPT and Gemini scramble to match—competition's a bloodbath
Who's switching?
Your to-do list is useless. Procrastination isn't a logic problem, it's an emotional war.
Researcher Dr. Piers Steel wasted 15 years studying procrastination just to prove: it's not a logic problem—it's a failure of emotional regulation.
1/4
This isn't theory. It's that gut-wrenching paralysis when you stare at a task you KNOW you should crush—but you dont. That's not laziness. It's your self-regulation imploding You can't win an emotional war with a logical weapon. Your to-do list is a pocket knife in a gunfight. 3
98 WOW !
"The postmodern turn results in fragmentation, instability, indeterminacy, and uncertainty"
kk.org/newrules/in_the_netwo…
