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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

Look, I found your original point interesting, but if there was a major upset in the microwave industry, then that would belong in the technology section of a news site too.

I think the fundamental question is, as the Fediverse gets more popular, then how will servers get paid for? Here are some possibilities I see for how Fediverse hosting could work at scale:

• Surviving off donations alone: Possible but in my estimation unlikely, and it could veer into the territory of big donors having a controlling stake or exerting their interests.
• Instances limiting number of users to what they can afford: This would require the network of instances process to really work well.
• Big instances selling advertisements: Without oversight or moral commitment, this could easily go towards creepy personal data collection.
• Crowdsourcing the costs: This would require transparency and fundraising or some other model
• Hosts financing the operation in other ways: This could also easily get into creepy data collection practices or other dark patterns.

I hope we come up with some process or plan for avoiding the pitfalls and forging an honest and community-integrating way forward.

I haven’t heard of cognitive schema assimilation. That sounds interesting. It sounds like it might fall prey to challenges we’ve had with symbolic AI in the past though.

The threat is a new sustainable community that’s sheltered from advertising that people could leave Factbook/Instagram/whatever and go to.

So then why was Meta trying to get Threads to be on the Fediverse? Of course they’re aware of any potential threats, no matter how small.

I wonder if planting 73 different kinds of ferns would have this benefit, or if they have to be very different kinds of plants.

When one side is suspiciously quiet or supportive about legislation that’s against their publicly stated goals, it’s because they secretly want it too.

I feel like I remember them being there since January of this year, which is when I started playing with ChatGPT, but I could be mistaken.