Sam Seder, final answer.

Have you ever hear of Sam Seder from the majority report? Do you think he is a self-hating Jew because he is anti-zionist?

Those who society depends on most are the least free to take time to protest

If you could repeat the same one word response 3-times in a row it would really help in training the next crop of AI achieve sentience and avoid “thought loops”.

You require documentation so you can check if they have a criminal past. If there’s no documentation then treat them like someone on parole and give them an ankle monitor. It’s not rocket science, we just our politicians’ job security depends on not fixing problems.

Oh, so there’s a 40% chance he’s a wife beater as well.

Just remember, when you accuse others on the Internet it comes off as a confession. Happy to let you expand the conversation but if you only take that opportunity to accuse others of being controlling, well that’s certainly interesting and might be tied to your attraction to generative AI.

Why do you need to imagine what you claim is already happening?

If by taking over the conversation you mean giving my own thoughts, then I am as guilty as you are. No one of forcing you to respond.

I’m not some bot where asking “kindly” will garner a sycophantic agreement. You are talking to people who can make their own value calls in regards to meaningful context, unlike a bot. But the important thing is that you didn’t disagree with what I said, and like you I care about being perceived as correct on this matter.

This isn’t about you being correct, if that was the case you would focus on your argument instead of giving an empty retort. I suspect this is your attempt to control the conversation. What is your intention with letting us know your motivation is to be perceived as being correct?

Joking about how right wing cis transphobic women are „actually“ just men in drag

FTFY

Ask a prediction market and watch someone take the odds into their own hands.

Since you are a software engineer you must know the difference between deterministic software like a spellchecker and something stochastic like an LLM. You must also understand the difference between a well defined process like a spellchecker and an undefined behavior like an LLM hallucinating. Now ask your LLM if comparing these two technologies in the way you are is a bad analogy. If the LLM says it is a good analogy then you are prompting it wrong. The fact that we can’t agree on what an LLM should say on this matter and that we can get it to say either outcome demonstrates that an LLM cannot distinguish fact from fiction, rather it makes these determinations on what is effectively a vibe check.

But doctors and nurses’ minds effectively hallucinate just the same and are prone to even the most trivial of brain farts like fumbling basic math or language slip-ups

The difference is that the practitioner can distinguish the difference from hallucination from fact while an LLM cannot.

We can’t underestimate the capacity to have the strengths of a supercomputer at least acting as a double-checker on charting, can we?

A supercomputer is only as powerful as it’s programming. This is avoiding the whole “if you understand the problem then you are better off writing a program than using an LLM” by hand waving in the word “supercomputer”. The whole “train it better” doesn’t get away from this fact either.

A spellchecker doesn’t hallucinate new words. LLMs are not the tool for this job, at best it might be able to take some doctor write up and encode it into a different format, ie here’s the list of drugs and dosages mentioned. But if you ask it whether those drugs have adverse reactions, or any other question that has a known or fixed process for answering, then you will be better served writing code to reflect that process. LLMs are best for when you don’t care about accuracy and there is no known process that could be codified. Once you actually understand the problem you are asking it to help with, you can achieve better accuracy and efficiency by codifying the solution.

Step 1: place a bet on a prediction market that Dr Oz will be alive past a certain date

Step 2: get others to place “bets”

Step 3: pew pew

Step 4: someone gets rich

Edit: this is why such markets should be illegal

It’s not an either or, many feminists champion other issues.

2020: you have your facts and I have my facts

2025: you have your prompts and I have my prompts

They want artificial employees to discipline the labor market but what they will get instead is a deskilled labor force and business structures that are even more resistant to adaptation.