Denazify the NYTimes

ChatGPT is using straight up fraud to sell subscriptions:

“In the first week, Mr. Brooks hit the limits of the free version of ChatGPT, so he upgraded to a $20-a-month subscription. It was a small investment when the chatbot was telling him his ideas might be worth millions.”

You can’t tell how many 大s there are in 大鹿大鹿大鹿?

Incredible often turns out to be not credible. AI currently exists in a very permissive regulatory, environmental, and financial context. It’s far from given that it can exist in any other context.

Are you actually examining the training data to verify those claims?

But do you then check the initial data set for any element that resembles the novel data or the resulting output?

Then it seems to me that there’s no real way to tell the difference from the user’s end between an AI that replaces human intelligence and one that simply obfuscates it.

Are there any AIs that aren’t dependent on massive amounts of human generated training data?

Did you examine the training data to confirm that it hadn’t seen anything like your story before?

It has a spherical pressure vessel, so it’s still a better design than Oceangate’s.

“and stressing the importance of checking the past before one makes a decision, not afterward, when the decision has already been made.”

Strike “accelerated path to” and you have a plan.

I figured it out in 2002 from involuntarily watching Fox News during my shifts at RadioShack.

Aside from the fact that we would need a Senate supermajority to do that.

You’re comparing Abilene to all of Texas.

The first ballot. The trajectory. You seem fixated on the process, but your argument kind of trails off prior to any actual conclusion.

You don’t seem to be contesting the outcome anymore, is that a fair assessment of where you are with your current thinking?

the republican party is a criminal conspiracy against the american republic

I mean, it’s not the most insane idea ever that the historical Jesus was teaching the ideas of a preexisting school of thought.

They were all good ideas, and worked more or less within the problems they were expected to solve.

You can make jokes about politics.

You can’t treat politics like a fucking joke.

Diamond Joe only worked when Biden was a trivial figure. If you think they could keep doing that bit about an actual president, then I don’t think you really understand the importance of politics.

If Kerry gave half a fuck about what the left wanted, he wouldn’t have voted for the war in the first place.

You have your history backwards.

My arguments at the time were quite good. I managed to convince everyone at my RadioShack that there were no WMDs and that the war was a bad idea.

We made Assad destroy his chemical weapons stockpile, but the fact that we accomplished that without resorting to an actual invasion renders the victory invisible in your eyes.

The Iraq war was a stupid thing and was properly identified as such ahead of time.

Don’t declare war on an emotion? Don’t invade a random country that isn’t allied with your actual enemy? Don’t invent an ad hoc legal system when your preexisting one works perfectly well?

If it turns out that people are cool with it, would you be willing to admit that you’re wrong?

The left opposed the Iraq war. Don’t do stupid things might not seem like that sophisticated of a policy, but it’s head and shoulders above the center and the right.

That sounds like the losing side accepting defeat.