FriendOfDeSoto

Sloppy slop slop - 2 sloppy 2 slop slop

And why is slop so sloppy slop slop? Consider this question asked and answered by yourself.

No, you can't. And there are messaging apps available on FD. The problem is not so much their availability there but whether or not the people you want to talk to also use them.

A home doesn't equal having a toilet either everywhere on this planet. I remember walking through areas of Shanghai in the early 2000s where chamber pots were collected and emptied in the morning. Erecting a roof is easier than hooking up to water and sewage pipes.

Thanks for your comment. They demonstrated something and I didn't mean to dismiss that out of hand. It can be one data point hopefully among many.

But this time this new paradigm is very much controlled by the wealthiest of the wealthy.

I think that was true with the socials to a point as well, all aflush with venture capital and people like Peter Thiel dicking about there as well. I think radio and television needed capital as well to get going. And the printing press wasn't cheap either and Gutenberg needed investors. So I think it's a retread at scale as well.

We don't believe everything we read, hear, see, and come across on social media either. The resistance to so-called AI is already building up. People who don't use it at all, people who try to avoid it, and businesses are regretting letting a lot of people go for this crap. We'll find a way to filter out the bullshit as well. Nobody jumps out of their seat when a train comes out of the tunnel on the silver screen any more. Consider that image as apocryphal and metaphorical in this context.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It's insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It's a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won't hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

The researchers cautioned, however, that, because they did not have a control group of people given counterarguments by humans, they could not definitively say the 30% reversal rate reflected an effect unique to AI.

This study may be considered one data point and if others add to it, okay. But until then, this is not worth getting outraged over.

Also, if you are in a position to change this dramatic outcome by altering a train's course or pushing a person off a bridge, you probably won't have the time to ask an LLM to enter into a philosophical debate with you. So this measured a highly theoretical change of mind about a virtually never to be encountered philosophical dilemma. The remote likelihood of such situations landing in their lap must have been very present in the participants' minds while answering. It's like playing with monopoly money or shooting a bunch of NPCs. A study about a more life-like scenario (political beliefs, cultural norms, work practices, etc.) which ticks all requirements of a well peer-reviewed study would probably be more insightful.

We are also retreading all the debates about misinformation from when the web came about and then again with the advent of social media. Which had previously been held when movable type came about in Europe. Or the advent of radio and TV. The long arm of history shows we're getting better at dealing with these changes.

I'm sure many people can relate. I'm not sure how helpful this is. You sound like you're not from an area currently in a state of war or suffering from famine. So you're probably somewhere where you could try to talk a therapist.

Whether you like it or not, you have to abide by local laws. You can't go to Pyongyang and exercise your first amendment rights either. The guy was warned and did this out of spite. Actions have consequences. Whether he just thought he was above the culture and norms as a tourist or whether he wanted to be a martyr for affected tourists everywhere really doesn't matter. And his fate doesn't infuriate me at all.

That being said the punishment itself is Draconian and not just mildly infuriating.

We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.

There are places on this planet where mothers just breastfeed in public and nobody cares. There are places where they only do it in private. And then there are places where it's something in between. Some do it in private because they don't want creepy stares. Some dgaf any more because they haven't slept for longer than an hour at a time since giving birth. More reasons exist for either preference.

You laid the creepy landmine yourself so that's the most likely explanation for any down vote. Also, as a young parent you will learn that nobody cares about your thoughts on parenthood outside of a small circle of close family and friends. The same applies to being shown pictures, or worse, videos of your kid.

Any slightly controversial post illustrated with an image has the look of attempted rage bait too.

"Cyberspace and the information environment" because it gets slopped with posts that were written by models.