Stepos Venzny

That’s in there, certainly, but that’s not the extent of it. And despite the title, it does actually have some examples of right wing comedians who are funny.

While I don’t disagree with the sentiment, exo means outside.

Does he think a tariff is a ban? Is that why he’s always so confused when people describe them as being like a tax around him?

The argument against cars also holds that people should live in places where cars aren’t necessary to avoid hermitude in the first place. You don’t need cars to socialize if you can walk to where people are, you don’t need cars for supplies if you can walk to where stuff is.

Long distance travel can have non-car solutions but also it shouldn’t be the default distance to be away from society.

It went EVEN BIGGER.

There is something about my hatred for the Enterprise intro which compels me to endure it.

Other people writing it for you and the openness with which I heard many other students discussing that they weren’t writing their own stuff.

I am entirely certain that it’s the same amount of cheating as it always was and the only thing that changed is that AI is how they’re doing it.

I think this disparity in votes and comments is also hugely affected by how the UI has been changing over the years as well as the destruction of third party apps. The site is now designed in a way where active participation is less encouraged than ever before unless you’re running old reddit on a traditional computer with an ad blocker.

Huschke’s version could work if the rich guy wants to destroy money that isn’t his in order to make own money more valuable, like I’m pretty sure was the plot of the movie Goldfinger.

Also I guess the green dude blew up the mint shortly before this happened so destroyed money can’t just be replaced.

So, underneath all the dramatic and flowery language, the argument being made seems to be “if the purpose of our biology is to make its own DNA persist, it wouldn’t make sense for biological chimeras to exist; based on the ability of cells to coordinate even with different DNA, the main goal seems to be human cells cooperating to make a general human form.”

This anthropomorphizing of biological building blocks is ridiculous. Cells and DNA are not in competition over who runs the show because they aren’t sapient. And I fully understand that the scientist making this claim understands that on an intellectual level but I mention it because the backbone of this argument is to conflate the literal and the figurative. The only inconsistency in cells being compatible despite having different “bosses” would be an ideological one and, because there isn’t any actual ideology at play, it doesn’t matter whether it’s consistent when attempting to describe it. You’ve proven a metaphor wasn’t literally true, congratulations.

But setting all that aside, this still doesn’t actually function as a counter argument. If we are to accept the premise of DNA’s authority as literal truth, is this function of unrelated cells to be compatible with each other not a logical extension of the DNA’s will? It more benefits the DNA for the organism to be viable even if that means other DNA also persists. It has a greater chance of reproducing itself if it’s not in a corpse.

Not only does the argument hinge on anthropomorphism, it also hinges on this metaphorical entity being self-destructively spiteful.

Lastly, it is downright comical to mention things like “cells know on their own that the heart goes on the left” when making an argument that a different characterization of biology is wrong based on the existence of rare biological edge cases. Some people’s hearts aren’t where hearts normally go. I’d let this kind of thing slide as a simplification of the truth were this not part of calling out exactly the same degree of simplification from someone else as being invalid.

That last paragraph is wild. Why would you even try to apply social dynamics to drug compatibility?

“Borrowing musical culture from other peoples is inadmissible,” Mr Dadayev reportedly said.

Then ban that?

I’m not saying the goal here is in any way acceptable, obviously, but mostly it weirds me out how indirect and ineffectual this method is. So much of the outside world’s musical culture makes it through this filter.

I will admit this is almost entirely gibberish to me but I don’t really have to understand. What’s important here is that you had any process at all by which you determined which answer was correct before writing an answer. The LLM cannot do any version that.

You find a way to answer a question and then provide the answer you arrive at, it never saw the prompt as a question or its own text as an answer in the first place.

An LLM is only ever guessing which word probably comes next in a sequence. When the sequence was the prompt it gave you, it determined that Homer was the most likely word to say. And then it ran again. When the sequence was your prompt plus the word Homer, it determined that Simpson was the next most likely word to say. And then it ran again. When the sequence was your prompt plus Homer plus Simpson, it determined that the next most likely word in the sequence was nothing at all. That triggered it to stop running again.

It did not assign any sort of meaning or significance to the words before it began answering, did not have complete idea in mind before it began answering. It had no intent to continue past the word Homer when writing the word Homer because it only works one word at a time. Chat GPT is a very well-made version of hitting the predictive text suggestions on your phone over and over. You have ideas. It guesses words.

deleted by creator

Let’s say hypothetically I had given you that question and that instruction on how to format your response. You would presumably have arrived at the same answer the AI did.

What steps would you have taken to arrive at that being your response?

But I don’t think the software can differentiate between the ideas of defined and undefined characters. It’s all just association between words and aesthetics, right? It can’t know that “Homer Simpson” is a more specific subject than “construction worker” because there’s no actual conceptualization happening about what these words mean.

I can’t imagine a way to make the tweak you’re asking for that isn’t just a database of every word or phrase that refers to a specific known individual that the users’ prompts get checked against and I can’t imagine that’d be worth the time it’d take to create.

Of course, one reason I might mind is if the machine uses what it learns from reading my work to produce work that could substitute for my own. But at the risk of hubris, I don’t think that’s likely in the foreseeable future. For me, a human creator’s very humanity feels like the ultimate trump card over the machines: Who cares about a computer’s opinion on anything?

This is really naïve. A huge number of people simply don’t care about creative works in those terms. We’re all encouraged to treat things as content to be consumed and discarded, not something to be actually thought about in terms of what it was expressing and why. The only value of a creator in that framework is that the creator fuels the machine and AI can fuel the machine. Not especially well at the moment but give it some time.