Alice Campos

There was a time when Americans would have laughed at this sycophancy. And that would have been all of American history before now.

This makes perfect sense to me and I've often wondered how, say, lawyers who use AI to write briefs expect to effectively argue their positions in court.

This is the way. Thank you!

Oh cool haha yeah, I’ve seen this one before, what was it? Can’t quite remember but I’m sure it ended up being fine

New rule: shouldn’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, and/or pay a sufficient bribe to the president of the United States to purchase your pardon

Once again, the question arises: cui bono?

Follow the money trail of poop picture profiteering

DILL

Different flavors for different types of hats: bbq, smoked, in brine, in olive oil, etc

Loathsome confederates

These people are in an evil cult. They have nothing to do with democracy and the rule of law, and everything to do with tribalism in the worst sense, domination, subjugation, and ethnic cleansing. These people are enemies of everyone who cares about human flourishing

[anthro major clearing her throat:]

ALL CULTURES ARE OF EQUAL VALUE YOU HEADASS

Wasn’t this the party that waxed moralistic about the evils of participation trophies? Now they demand head pats for headassery or else

Absolutely fucking horrifying and disgraceful

I think part of What's Going On with billionaires is that the daily friction of interacting with normal people is part of what anchors people to the real world, and once you have enough money to buy your way out of the friction you can knock down a load-bearing column propping up your sanity.

What happens when ChatGPT cites to a real case but misstates what the case stands for? That doesn't fly for Judge Behm in Michigan. The court says that while a litigant could make the same error based on faulty reasoning, LLMs can't, because they can't reason.

And while a litigant might get away with similar overstatements because they could, perhaps, reason their way to showing how a case's stated holding might extend to novel situations, an LLM does not reason in the way a litigant must. To put it in a slightly different way, LLMs do not perform the metacognitive processes that are necessary to comply with Rule 11. When an LLM overstates a holding of a case, it is just piecing together a plausible-looking sentence

h/t @robertfreundlaw.bsky.social

holy shit, an accurate legal critique of LLMs. LLMs don't reason because they're just stitching together plausible-looking sentences indifferent to the content

And I won’t forget they’ve got zip ties
And total immunity

Oh wow, new band, great stuff, thanks for the recommendation! Love it

Why did I laugh so hard at this? Lol I laughed so hard

"I'm havin a breakdown," says one crudely-drawn stick figure to another. "You'll be OK," says the second. The first stick figure exclaims, "AGGHHH", and collapses. His head and outstretched arms and legs spell out the letters O-K.

You’ll Be OK

We need to turn humanity off and turn it back on again, maybe. Something’s gone wrong

wtf I had no idea where this was going & I laughed so hard

What the shit?

Should change it to MS WOW (Microsoft world opinion world)

Thank you. Yeah it’s been a minute since I studied international law but that sounds right. That’s what a crime against humanity is, isn’t it? That’s what that category was invented for

Rending my garments over how true this is. Every word of it.

You could repost this every day since Jan 20 and there would probably be a new thing it would apply to

They are doing an ethnic cleansing and we need to be clear about that too. Their project is no less than that. It is the attempted ethnic cleansing of America.

It’s up to us to see it for exactly what it is, and it’s up to us to stop it.

Jeffrey Dahmer had “a different view” of young men

Especially *sniff* Donald Trump Jr. *sniff sniff*

I think of her often and marvel at the lack of wisdom of our people