Sell meth to Musk’s gang? Get them hooked.

This sounds like a situation where the two of them chatted about what was best for the two of them and came to a reasonable decision.

On a general note. Older people want to say that social media has an echo chamber effect and reinforces bad beliefs. And you probably hear this from people with all variety of political beliefs.

I’ve read several studies indicating that’s not true. Indicating that people aren’t as polarized as others say they are, and also indicating that social media did not lead to greater polarization. But there’s tons of data I haven’t read, so don’t cite me.

Personal knowledge, from both myself and many of my friends, is that before the Web we were far more limited in getting information, which was a problem for people who grew up as minorities, in various ways. And I believe that was a far worse problem than whatever your Facebook group might be causing.

I see you have a selective memory. Biden was mostly useless.

Attempt to injure needs to lead to massive suspensions, with repeat attempts being absurdly long. Anything else encourages dirty players and bosses, and the fans hate that shit. (IMO.)

Football varies by league, of course, but it seems that many leagues are far too weak on this front.

Agree, I felt the bad effects of FB around then. It was just so pointless.

There is no point. There are billions of points, because there are billions of people, and that’s the point.

You know that there are hundreds or thousands of reasonable uses of generative AI, whether it’s customer support or template generation or brainstorming or the list goes on and on. Obviously you know that. So I’m not sure that you’re asking a meaningful question. People are using a tool to solve various problems, but you don’t see the point in that?

If your position is that they should use other tools to solve their problems, that’s certainly a legitimate view and you could argue for it. But that’s not what you wrote and I don’t think that’s what you feel.

Making the existence of the switch public is often something you don’t want. It allows others to do troubleshooting in advance. It also destroys your reputation with many people who might otherwise work with you.

If you are content to keep things secret, share the documents with several different friends or law firms in several different countries along with conditions for release. Don’t tell them or everyone who all has the documents. That sounds relatively simple.

Everything relies on someone caring, in this context.

Of course most of us talk about the industry, not the technology. Which is to say, you could talk about the tool, but most people aren’t.

Right right. Siri data can be “anonymized” or format shifted, and then the new data is sold and used for marketing, and technically the company wasn’t lying. But the same problems still exist.

But don’t take my word. Just read the statement in the article and decide for yourself if they’re being sleazy or honest.

If you say so.

The best? No, it does not have that reputation. Everyone knows it’s mostly full of shit, with some good channels here and there. The biggest? Maybe, depending what you are talking about.

That’s a good start, but where do you draw the line? If I use a template, is that AI? What if I am writing a letter based on that template and use a grammar checker to fix the grammar. Is that AI? And then I use the thesaurus to automatically beef up the vocabulary. Is that AI?

In other words, you can’t say LLM and think it’s a clear proposition. LLMs have been around and used for various things for quite a while, and some of those things don’t feel unnatural.

So I’m afraid we still have a definitional problem. And I don’t think it is easy to solve. There are so many interesting edge cases.

Let’s consider an old one. Weather forecasting. Of course the forecasts are in a sense AI models. Or models, if you don’t want to say AI. Doesn’t matter. And then that information can be displayed in a table, automatically, on a website. That’s a script, not really AI, but hey, you could argue the whole system now counts as AI. So then let’s use an LLM to put it in paragraph form, the table is boring. I think Weather.com just did this recently and labeled it “AI forecast”, in fact. But is this really an LLM being used in a new way? Is this actually harmful when it’s essentially the same general process that we’ve had for decades? Of course it’s benign. But it is LLM, technically…

Define the terms please. AI has existed for decades. What are you focusing on now?

Ignoring him is not working for you, or you wouldn’t be here. Either respond actively or distance yourself. If he’s a narcissist, the former might work. If he’s looking for a fight, the latter might work.

And he was your dad. If he doesn’t act like a dad, though, he’ll become “the jackass who fathered me”. Which is sad.

Human moderators who tweak the AI settings are still biased. So you haven’t solved any problem by throwing AI in the middleof it all.

Go look at YouTube, they are already doing it over there.

And it’s horrible. Sometimes my comments are taken down automatically, but YouTube never tells me why, so I don’t know what I need to change, and it’s even hard to find out if my comments have been taken down. The fastest way is for me to write a comment and then wait 10 seconds and then try to edit it.

You’re asking for something better but what’s your baseline? What are you measuring? What’s your metric? How would you know if it got better, and more importantly, how would we as a user base in general know if it got better?

The moderation impossibility theorem says that your idea will fail. Also, what do you think AI is? People are keen to say “AI”, but they’re incredibly tentative about providing any details.

More importantly, what problem do you think you’re solving? We all agree that trolling and power tripping occur, but what specifically are you trying to address? I’m not sure you know, and this is really important.

Please read it all again. They didn’t rely on the conversion. It’s just a convenient way to create a counterexample.

Anyway, here’s a simple equivalent. Let’s consider a number like pi except that wherever pi has a 9, this new number has a 1. This new number is infinite and doesn’t repeat. So it also answers the original question.