Like most popular social media sites, you usually won’t see very valuable discussion in the comments, at least in my experience. It’s mostly for people to post news, research, and so on, and follow the big names or organizations in their field.
Most of the valuable information is diffused via posts but I do put a bit of time and effort into trying to filter out all the crap posts like memes, the faux inspirational stuff, self-aggrandizing nonsense, etc.
Yeah I don’t care. I’m not here to make exceptions for pedophiles and abusers.
Okay, and if it happened years ago but the victim is now 14 instead of 6 and they’re still in the same environment as their abuser?
“Giving (potential) victimizers a line of support via organized religion to try to help them not commit sex crimes against children (in the future, or again)” is not a good argument because it has been shown time and time again that religious institutions cannot be trusted to reliably take the correct course of action and be accountable. That is the role of the government and law enforcement. It is unacceptable to put the feelings of adults over the safety of children and other victims, and organized religions have a tendency to protect those with power and influence over protecting the vulnerable.
So let me get this straight. You’re saying that a member of clergy should be allowed to hear an adult say, “I molested that child last week” and not have to report it?
Is that what you are saying? I want to hear it from you straight.
I recognize that my intrusive thoughts are my own, but this term existing is helpful because: 1) some people incorrectly believe that thoughts imply a desired outcome, and this term helps explain and describe that this isn’t always the case and 2) it’s a meaningful and useful way of categorizing these types of thoughts for the purposes of psychology, psychiatry, understanding ourselves better, etc.
In cases like severe OCD, classifying intrusive thoughts as such could help someone understand and cope with disturbing thoughts and develop subsequent coping mechanisms. Not everyone’s the same and some terms can be helpful.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he’s dogmatic and petty but I haven’t seen a specific thing he’s been wrong about, but I’d love examples.
Intent is part of it as well. If you have too many people who want to use your service, you’re not being attacked, you have an actual shortage of ability to service requests and need to adjust accordingly.
deleted by creator
I’m going to use those things as answer machines and you can’t stop me.
Jokes aside, I always validate what chatbots tell me, not even just important things. I use GPT-4 for work and 90% of the time it can show me how to use very specific functions in complex ways, but yesterday (for the first time in awhile) it made up a function that didn’t exist. To its credit, I said, “Are you sure about [function]?” and it said, “I’m sorry, I got confused. That function doesn’t exist. However, look into X, Y, Z for further resources” and I did and they were the correct things to look into.
The best ones can literally write pretty good code, and explain any concept on the Internet to you that you ask them to. If you don’t understand a specific thing about their explanation, they can add onto their explanation, and they can respond in the style you want (explain as if I’m ten, explain as if I’m an undergrad, etc).
I use it literally every day for work in a somewhat niche field. I don’t really agree that it’s a “parlor trick”.
Keep up the good work. You’re a great avocate.
I was kind of with you until saying they’re “being a fucking idiot.”
Encouraging someone to help out? Great.
Browbeating someone for voicing the viewpoint or experience a lot of users are facing? We can do better than that.
Fascinating that people with stutters can be helped by practicing speaking with speech jammers.
It makes me think about how ADHD medication will make people without ADHD more distractible while it’ll help focus people with it.
John Wayne Gacy is really unhappy with this feature.
I think that’s their point: That maybe, as long as a candidate is mentally fit, then voters ought to be able to continue voting for them if they feel like the candidate is still worth voting for.
Honestly, if there was some kind of magical bullet to simply ban candidates who are mentally unfit (i.e. losing their marbles) from holding office that couldn’t be exploited, I think a lot of people would find that preferable to an age limit.
That doesn’t address issues like politicians who are too technologically illiterate to do things like open PDF files, though.
Old-school AI systems from way back in the day called Expert Systems were just a crapload of IF statements. There’s never been a concrete agreed-upon definition of AI because there’s never been an agreed-upon definition of the word Intelligence.
They’re saying that politicians like AOC, Katie Porter, Sanders, etc. are high quality public servants, and that high quality public servants should be able to be elected as long as they have cognitive function.
On one hand, in a hypothetical and ideal scenario, that would be nice to have for us voters.
On the other hand, even if an elected official does great work and has a great track record, should they be able to just serve indefinitely until their brain gives out? There’d be a lot of potential problems such as having entrenched and corruptible political operators, even if they started out good, who prevent “fresh blood” from entering politics. It’d be neat to see a study comparing different countries and political systems where there are age barriers and term limits vs those that don’t have them.
The free version gets things wrong a bunch. It’s impressive how good GPT-4 is. Human brains are still a million times better in almost every way (they cost a few dollars of energy to operate per day, for example) but it’s really hard to believe how capable the state of the art of LLMs is until you’ve tried it.
You’re right about one thing though. Humans are able to know things, and to know when we don’t know things. Current LLMs (transformer-based architecture) simply can’t do that yet.
if you’ve never posted anything useful to anyone
First of all, I’ve put painstaking effort into a lot of contributions. It hurts to delete them. Second of all, I don’t need to be a contributor to be impacted by people deleting valuable comments, but I still support the deletion.
Reddit had become the “go-to” place for finding trustworthy user reviews, and it’s been shoring up weaknesses in Google’s search engine for a few years now. They don’t deserve the reputation of being that platform because they regularly abuse and alienate good-faith contributors, and the CEO of the company has been caught multiple times in lies and completely unprofessional and untrustworthy behavior.
Fortunately, there are backups of Reddit and archive systems. It’s time for users who care about contributing to bring their value elsewhere, where we can build new ecosystems of user-powered value and knowledge sharing.
Here are factors that might commonly be used to provide evidence for intent to eat:
Storing the body in a way that preserves it in ways appropriate for consumption but not medical use
Owning implements used specifically for the consumption of the target creature (e.g. a carving knife for a turkey, lobster crackers/pokers, etc.)
Possession of ingredients habitually consumed with the target creature
Communications or behavior signaling an intent to eat the target creature (this one is kind of obvious)
Carnivorous character/personality tendencies (potentially provided by character witnesses before or against the defendant)
Interesting idea that intent would be such an important part of their legal system.