Just ask them to answer your question in the style of a know-it-all Redditor because you need the dialog for a compelling narrative or something

The problem, like with many things in life, is that there’s a desire for people to place clear delineations on things for purpose of clarity and peace of mind, when it actually exists on a very fuzzy spectrum. I’d argue you do gamble a tiny percent chance of getting in a wreck every time you drive in exchange for getting places much faster. Likewise, were you to walk instead, there are unique risks and payoffs associated with that choice too.

Whether or not the risks are well known or there’s a decision to increase the level of risk is a little beside the point. There are plenty of people addicted to gambling who genuinely believe they’ll hit it big and retire one day, and that the reward payout is inevitable even when it’s clearly not.

Risk management is at the core of both investment and gambling. The riskier your investment, the closer it comes to just putting the money on a roulette position in practice. There are plenty of portfolios that slowly hemorrhage money and/or eat up any would-be growth via fees: those are your 51-49 splits. Also it doesn’t matter if there’s such a split if you decide to go all in and it goes belly up, however you slice that.

If you do risky shit with money, it’s a gamble whether it pays off. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the point you’re trying to make?

In some states, you can’t vote by mail except under specific circumstances, such as being a senior citizen or swearing that you’ll be out of state entirely on election day.

Y’know, now that you mention it, the sealioning behaviour I’d been conditioned to expect is a big reason for why I spend so much time writing my comments and adding qualifying statements.

People developing local models generally have to know what they’re doing on some level, and I’d hope they understand what their model is and isn’t appropriate for by the time they have it up and running.

Don’t get me wrong, I think LLMs can be useful in some scenarios, and can be a worthwhile jumping off point for someone who doesn’t know where to start. My concern is with the cultural issues and expectations/hype surrounding “AI”. With how the tech is marketed, it’s pretty clear that the end goal is for someone to use the product as a virtual assistant endpoint for as much information (and interaction) as it’s possible to shoehorn through.

Addendum: local models can help with this issue, as they’re on one’s own hardware, but still need to be deployed and used with reasonable expectations: that it is a fallible aggregation tool, not to be taken as an authority in any way, shape, or form.

How about: Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, going mask-off calling illegal immigrants “murderers and rapists”, the “Muslim Ban” on air travel, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler’s behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, ending the Iran nuclear deal, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the “China virus”, spreading vaccine disinformation until one was developed before the end of his term, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matter protestors were “burning down cities”, wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring “far left radical lunatics” part of his “enemy from within”, being an avowed friend of Epstein, sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights (+ setting up the conditions that led to their erosion; see supreme court point above), and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn’t the one in charge when it happened).

I guess he’s not a cop though, so there’s that.

(minor edits made for grammar/spelling)

On the whole, maybe LLMs do make these subjects more accessible in a way that’s a net-positive, but there are a lot of monied interests that make positive, transparent design choices unlikely. The companies that create and tweak these generalized models want to make a return in the long run. Consequently, they have deliberately made their products speak in authoritative, neutral tones to make them seem more correct, unbiased and trustworthy to people.

The problem is that LLMs ‘hallucinate’ details as an unavoidable consequence of their design. People can tell untruths as well, but if a person lies or misspeaks about a scientific study, they can be called out on it. An LLM cannot be held accountable in the same way, as it’s essentially a complex statistical prediction algorithm. Non-savvy users can easily be fed misinfo straight from the tap, and bad actors can easily generate correct-sounding misinformation to deliberately try and sway others.

ChatGPT completely fabricating authors, titles, and even (fake) links to studies is a known problem. Far too often, unsuspecting users take its output at face value and believe it to be correct because it sounds correct. This is bad, and part of the issue is marketing these models as though they’re intelligent. They’re very good at generating plausible responses, but this should never be construed as them being good at generating correct ones.

Wow, it’s almost as if someone being bad can be for multiple reasons!

90 days to cycle private tokens/keys?

Radical unschooling?

We could assign it to any point within a recognizable region in the Cosmic Microwave Background, which would probably be the most universally-applicable reference available. One just needs to be able to filter out the noise from surrounding celestial bodies. The CMB does slowly change over time, but so too does the position of stars within galaxies and galaxies relative to one another.

Life is suffering. Once you accept that fact wholly, you may ascend

Just like the shopping cart theory itself, this is mostly just a thought experiment at this point in time.

The point of a protestation is to make it hard for others to ignore, and make it clear what the end condition is. I don’t plan on just starting to do this as an individual because it would have no impact; I still make sure my own carts get returned personally.

The point stands that our goodwill is frequently exploited for profit, often under the pretense that it’s just basic human decency.

I gotta be honest, my bf or I still make sure the cart goes back every time we shop, but I increasingly question whether I should bother. These grocery stores keep raising their prices well above inflation so they can pocket the rest and brag to shareholders about it, at the cost of people who actually shop there.

It’s tempting to say that if they’re going to play that game, they get no courtesy from me as a customer and can hire more cart collectors. It’s miniscule on an individual level, but it is unpaid labor.

There’s the argument that unreturned carts mostly inconvenience other customers, but honestly if the store is exploiting both customers’ goodwill and wallets, I think it’s fine to make the experience at that store just that little bit worse; maybe that last little push will encourage people to shop elsewhere (where it’s an option of course, i.e. not a small town).

I don’t feel this urge at stores like H Mart even though they have so many fewer return stalls and it’s often a longer walk to do so.

I guess this is kind of an antithesis to Shopping Cart Theory I’ve been developing in my head over the past little while. It’s conditional on the store itself being overtly greedy, but I think there might be something to it.

If you look at the whole coin (in the original image without the red circle) and trace the text, it looks fairly uniform except for the empty space under the hammer’s handle. It’s a rather unseemly gap that could have been made more aesthetically pleasing with better design.

Keep in mind that the 5 billion figure is literally just from food insecurity and famine during and following nuclear winter.

More people would die in the explosions directly, and more would die from the resulting fires + building collapses + radiation fallout + infrastructural collapse.

Given that most targets are population centers and military targets (often both), it doesn’t look good.

But yeah I mean there probably would be some survivors.

I think they’ll get away with it because they’re deliberately marketing it the way so many similar movies are managed: formulaically for kids, but with some actors and writing meant to give ‘the adults’ something to watch too. Unfortunately, ‘the adults’ are almost always assumed to have only a passing familiarity with the subject material, and I have a feeling they’re going to write the ‘for the adults in the room’ jokes with that assumption in mind.

It feels like it’s being written on an outdated manual, ignoring the fact that there’s a very sizable core audience of 20 and 30-somethings they could tap into. My guess is that everything they tried only tested well with children in focus groups, since apparently they were dead-set on a live-action format from the very beginning. I hate to be so cynical, but it’s possible they decided to go all-in on kids because they can hit the appeal without worrying as much on the production standards.

What if it is getting ripped/torn but there’s just more space ‘underneath’ that instantly fills the gaps as they are created? I guess at that point it’s indistinguishable from stretching but it’s interesting to think about

That’s really good to know, and not how I thought the system worked previously. I thought instances were responsible for all vote aggregation and simply reported totals to each other at regular intervals, plus submitting comments/edits from users which are more obviously public