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.
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.
The original question was not exactly about pi in base ten. It was about infinite non-repeating numbers. The comment answered the question by providing a counterexample to the proffered claim. It was perfectly good math.
You have switched focus to a different question. And that is fine, but please recognize that you have done so. See other comment threads for more information about pi itself.
Exceptions are infinite. Is that rare?
Sign up for next year before all the slots get full.
No. The expression you looking for is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. What you wrote is proof beyond any doubt, which is not the legal standard.
Also, please take a look at Florida Chapter 796, or if you were concerned about another location, look at the state or local laws for that location. You will probably see that actually engaging in the act of sex is one of several ways that you could violate prostitution laws.
The jury decides what has been proven, not you. It really is that simple. People get convicted all the time of crimes where nobody saw them do it. Because of other evidence and common sense.
And look, think about the standard that you’re trying to push. If we have text messages before and after, plus video of them going in and coming out of the hotel room. Is that good enough for you? They could always say that they thought about sex but settled for monopoly and were only joking around later… Maybe you would believe that story, but maybe the average juror would laugh.
You mean like text messages? If you have texts and then video cameras of two people going into a hotel room, that’s mighty fine evidence. What the hell else were they gonna do? Yoga?
You don’t need eyewitnesses to get convictions. That is not the legal standard.
I think the only place to put it is on the floor behind the toilet.
When I was younger and foolish, I agreed to help my boss feel a staffing void for a month and a half, which involved at least 20 hours of extra work. I was on salary, so of course it was unpaid overtime. My boss gave me a bonus of $50. That alone is kind of messed up, but my boss should have given me a raise, because it was the end of the year and that’s when raises ought to be given, and instead of giving me a raise they gave me that $50 bonus.
I took the money, but I immediately lost all respect for my boss and stopped caring about that job. It was a good lesson, though. Don’t work unpaid overtime, and expect your boss to shaft you, because they can take home the money that ought to be going into your wallet, if you let them.
Like yeah maybe it kind of depends what environment and what people you’re talking about. When I’m in the waiting room at the bus station I don’t tell anyone anything about where I’m going or how long I’m going to be gone because it’s not their business. And when I’m leaving work to go home at 4:30 or whatever, I say goodbye, and I don’t tell people that I’ll be back tomorrow at 8:30, because it’s kind of obvious unless it’s the weekend and then it’s still kind of obvious. So what are you even talking about? I’m just not following.
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.