Exactly, genocides happen and no religion is good at preventing them. All religions are equally useless as sources of truth and morality. We should neither vilify or praise anyone for being religious or adhere to one religion of the other.
adherents aren’t acting in ways that are harmful to others
How can you be sure the person you’re asking is not a hallucination as well?
If you remove LLM slop will there be anything left?
From what I know they still have to call additional unit to assist with the test. Probably some training is required so it can’t just be any unit. They could easily call someone to bring a breathalyzer but or course they don’t want a accurate result. They just want an excuse to fuck with someone.
I’m sure in your bubble there’s a lot of people that would let him go just to make a point but general public is very stupid and easily manipulated. They will easily find 12 people that will “fulfill their duty” and make sure “justice was served”. It’s very unlikely that 1 person believing in jury nullification will slip through and derail it by causing miss trail, let alone 12 that will unanimously vote “not guilty”.
The issue we’re talking about is not getting a reply from bot in a chat or phone call. We’re talking about people with metal issues using AI in a way that exasperates their problems. Specifically we’re talking about people believing AI is their personal companion and creating personal connection with it to a point that wrong answers generated by AI affect their well being. Vast majority of people don’t use AI like that.
Definitely not everyone. We’re talking about users that have a single chat open and have endless conversations about personal topics there. I think majority of users will ask single question or have a short conversation and then create new chat. And don’t talk about personal problems. We’re also talking about people with specific metal issues. AI is a terrible for many reasons but I think “it helps people kill themselves” is exaggerated. Before AI people were getting sucked into online communities that were encouraging suicide but the media barely noticed the issue. Marijuana is very dangerous for people with predisposition to some mental issues like schizophrenia but we just agree that people should have that in mind if they are going to use it. It’s the same with AI. Some people shouldn’t be using it but it’s not a reason for a total ban. The reason for a total ban is that it’s bad for environment, jobs and education and offers little benefits.
I think with all the guardrails current models have you have to talk to it for weeks if not months before it degrades to a point that it will let you talk about anything remotely harmful. Then again, that’s exactly what a lot of people do.
Harrison Ford was like 90 when he played Indiana Jones again. They will get him a younger sidekick and that’s it.
Which one is the rapist? I sure hope not Jackie!
It’s a joke, right?
RIGHT?
But if you don’t have a helmet hair how will people know you rode a bike?
I don’t know what he feels or thinks. I’m just commenting on the click bait title. What I would be interested in is why he’s still allowed to teach at all. Then again, maybe titles like that help direct attention to it and will get us some answers from Harvard?
So he basically said “I know I fucked up and no one wants me here but it’s my job so let’s focus on the material”. Didn’t look “extremely awkward” to me. I mean, fuck this guy but what do people expect him to do? Kill himself?
So I’ve check and ‘likely’ can be defined as “Within the realm of credibility; plausible.”/" Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable." which I would say makes 10% likely but also as “having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable” which would make 10% unlikely. Depends on which dictionary you check :)
Not in US. In US gun owners are never responsible for what happens with their guns. It can be the kid’s fault, the dog’s fault or even fault of the gun itself but it’s never the gun owner’s fault.
Interesting. I would say that if it’s unlikely then the risk is small. I would also say 10% is pretty likely. For drugs 1-10% chance of a side effect means it’s a common side effect.
You’re technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I don’t think you have to know all religions to be able to say that. You just need to know what religion is and how it works. Religion can’t be the source of truth because it’s based on faith, not truth. If you look for truth without any dogma restricting your research you’re a scientists, not a theologian. Religion can’t be the source or morality because it’s goal is to enrich and empower the people that control it, not to teach anything useful. If you teach about morality without demanding obedience and money from your followers you’re a philosopher, not a religious leader.