<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Culture on It Might be Working</title><link>https://iguessthatworks.com/tags/culture/</link><description>Recent content in Culture on It Might be Working</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>Jeff Mayeur</copyright><lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://iguessthatworks.com/tags/culture/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>A and R Block</title><link>https://iguessthatworks.com/posts/06-2026/a-and-r-block/</link><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0700</pubDate><guid>https://iguessthatworks.com/posts/06-2026/a-and-r-block/</guid><description>
&lt;p&gt;Today’s musing centers around &lt;a href="https://bsky.app/profile/carnage4life.bsky.social/post/3mnatmvrw7s2q"&gt;this response&lt;/a&gt; to Steve Yegge’s Opus 4.8 critique. I’ve pulled back to Sonnet for most of what I do these days; partly that’s a cost choice and partly because I don’t have a meaningful use case for an advanced thinking model.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Steve’s critique and Dare Obasanjo’s summation fit within one of the limits I’ve been seeing. I’ve identified it as the inability of a model to know when to be intentionally wrong. I understand that, with additional training data or reasoning layers, a model could be tuned to a category of voice, but it can’t reproduce my voice; even if trained on my writings, it couldn’t reproduce how I will want to express myself in a year. Yesterday my voice may have been incandescent irreverence; tomorrow it might be spurned arrogance. I’m not even a professional writer, yet I’ve found it too easy to confound Opus (&lt;a href="https://iguessthatworks.com/posts/05-2026/aiq-scale/?query=spurge"&gt;AIQ Scale&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>