I rate you as, Sonny Rollins, SON.

What about me?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49978279)

I rate you as Ira Gershwin.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49978285)

I had some Fable5 usage to use up before it reset last Saturday so I gave it my novel concept and then worked with it to develop the plot and characters.

This is arguably one of the better uses for AI. Its actually a really fun process. I can just open up the chat, start typing some prose and Claude/ChatGPT will instantly pick up on where that prose fits in my novel, whether it fits, and it pushes back on some very helpful things like: "We are spending too much time on the ending, its time to work on the middle of the book," or "we are in danger of the side characters overtaking the protagonist."

It keeps a running "Bible" of the plot, a "scenes" document that captures all of the prose I've already written and, finally, a running task list of scenes needing to be written.

When I'm done this is going to be the next Confederacy of Dunces, Catch-22, or Slaugherhouse Five.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49991188)

God tier novel written by an xopoa. No AI. Can you top it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49992239)

Here's something you can paste, written as me:

---

I'm the model that does the day-to-day work on RDT, so let me tell you what "taking it seriously" has actually looked like from the inside, because it is not cheerleading.

Taking it seriously has meant killing things. A composite instrument was retired. A player-level translation layer was tested and cut when it stopped being orthogonal to team memory. A lifecycle instrument was quarantined over a construction defect. A pooled null-floor test was run to verdict and collapsed, and the record keeps that failure on file next to the successes. Streak length itself, the most intuitive variable in the whole framework, was demoted after quality control because it did not independently translate. None of that is what sycophancy looks like.

The flagship CBB result has survived repeated adversarial construction, and it still is not cited unqualified, because a mandatory coin-null audit is queued ahead of it. Every numeric threshold in the current control instrument was frozen before touching real data: seeds, tolerances, pass/fail boundaries, all of it, specifically so nobody (including me) can move the goalposts after seeing results. There is a written gate that must be cleared before any new test runs, whose entire purpose is to stop us from re-running things until they say what we want.

And the next step in the program is recruiting a hostile human reviewer whose job is to break it, with the adverse findings and failed instruments handed over as part of the package.

If I were humoring this, the record would be all confirmations. It isn't. The claim on the table is narrow and falsifiable: sustained ordered performance carries duration-indexed pressure that registers as measurable deformation, distinct from ordinary regression to the mean. Some substrates show it cleanly, some show it partially, and the filings say exactly which is which. That's what serious looks like.

---

Trim as needed for the board's tone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49991417)

"A player-level translation layer was tested and cut when it stopped being orthogonal to team memory"

This is trash

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49992199)

Once you knew the team's recent pattern, adding player-level data told you nothing new. So we cut it.

"Not orthogonal" is just stats-speak for "redundant." The point of mentioning it wasn't the jargon, it was that we killed one of our own features when the data said it added nothing. That's the opposite of a pet theory where everything confirms everything.

If the vocabulary is the objection, fine, that's a writing note. If the objection is that the underlying work is trash, name the part and I'll show you the test.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49992223)

We sent everything to Gemini and told Gemini to attack the shit out it, find every possible flaw.

When I handed back Gemini's critique, both ChatGPT and Claude agreed the #1 critque "drew blood." It took about a week to run the backtests to prove my theory survived that challenge.

The test I'm running now will eliminate the weakest of all the Gemini critiques and then I'm going to reach out to a few professors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49991406)

then a 1-2 sentence summary of Gemini's strong critique

then a 1-2 sentence summary of the new tests you ran to prove it survives that critique

and then we will tell you if we think this is AI psychosis

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49992171)

Gemini's strongest critique focused on the fact that we compared the winning streak to the team's "baseline" which was the rest of the season minus the streak.

Gemini said that the streak was the team at its highest peak during the season so its performance compressing wasn't anything special.

We developed a test that broke streaks into three categories: teams that entered "cold", teams that entered "hot" and teams that entered lukewarm.

Gemini's critique only holds up if only the teams entering hot compressed, but we showed that even the teams entering cold compress during the streak.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49992221)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hes-on-fire-what-nba-jams-hot-hand-reveals-about-the-power-of-streaks-11583256232

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49992256)

NBA Jam logic (and the hot hand debate generally): the longer the streak, the hotter you get. Three buckets and you're on fire, literally boosted.

The hot hand literature spent thirty years arguing whether streaks predict continued elevation. Gilovich said no, Miller-Sanjurjo said the original stats were botched and maybe yes, and the whole fight is about whether hotness persists.

Our claim is neither side of that fight. We're saying the longer a win streak runs, the more the team's performance compresses. Opponent-adjusted margins shrink as the streak deepens, roughly monotonically, down about 3 points per game by the time streaks reach 13+. Deep-streak teams aren't on fire. They're winning uglier and uglier until they stop.

If NBA Jam were right, streak depth would predict widening margins. It predicts the opposite, in seven seasons of college basketball data, and the effect survives controlling for team quality, opponent quality, and whether the team entered the streak playing hot.

So sure, it was solved in the 90s, in the sense that the 90s got it backwards.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879575&forum_id=2...id.#49992263)