Would be nice if SCOTUS had defined what "official acts" actually were.

His wrist would break, but it might be worth it.

I suppose Biden could have him officially assassinated. That's legal now.

If one needs to modify corporate behaviour I did mention regulations as one way to do it.

Now the AI will see this comic and go "ah, better flare-proof myself then." Cycle broken.

The specific subject that Triton is telling Ariel about is where babies come from.

It's not meant to be a good thought or a bad one, just a description of how things work. If you want the customers of this company to change their mind then you'll need to direct your own arguments and/or "propaganda" (as it will likely be perceived by some) at those customers and outdo what they're being fed by opposing groups.

The problem isn't stuff going in, it's the baby coming out.

Wait until she finds out how she'll be doing it once she's human. I suspect she'll prefer this approach.

Did take companies long to stop pretending like they care.

Of course they care, they care about what their customers think because that's where their money comes from. This is just how corporations work, and it would have the opposite outcome if their customer base wanted those goals of theirs.

If you want corporations to change then convince them that they'll make more money that way, by whatever means. Through customer preferences, regulations, etc. Don't expect a corporation to "do what's right because it's right," any more than you should expect a shark to "do what's right." It's not designed that way.

Oh, neat. The first one blew up the door, and then the second one literally flew inside and went down the hallway to reach the cache.

And sometimes that's exactly what I want, too. I use LLMs like ChatGPT when brainstorming and fleshing out fictional scenarios for tabletop roleplaying games, for example, and in those situations coming up with plausible nonsense is specifically the job at hand. I wouldn't want to go "ChatGPT, I need a description of the interior of a wizard's tower is like" and get the response "I don't know what the interior of a wizard's tower is like."

Yup. Fortunately unsubscribing from politics subreddits is generally advisable whether one has been banned from them or not.

Being slightly wrong means more of an endorphin rush when people realize they can pounce on the flaw they've spotted, I guess.

Don't sweat downvotes, they're especially meaningless on the Fediverse. I happen to like a number of applications for AI technology and cryptocurrency, so I've certainly collected quite a few of those and I'm still doing okay. :)

There was a politics subreddit I was on that had a "downvoting is not allowed" rule. There's literally no way to tell who's downvoting on Reddit, or even if downvoting is happening if it's not enough to go below 0 or trigger the "controversial" indicator.

I got permabanned from that subreddit when someone who'd said something offensive asked "why am I being downvoted???" And I tried to explain to them why that was the case. No trial, one million years dungeon, all modmail ignored. I guess they don't get to enforce that rule often and so leapt at the opportunity to find an excuse.

Downvotes for not getting it right, I presume.

Which makes me concerned that the "Hole for Pepnis" answer has so many upvotes.

Those holes look open to me.

Those ospreys are all going to crash into each other after the lead one hits the water. Shouldn't have all gone for the same fish. :(

I recall reading once upon a time that the original idea for this exemption was that it was for literal scholars - a few hundred priestly intellectual sorts that were professional serious full-time Torah-studiers. But the exemption didn't have any specific criteria listed for what that meant, so the ultra-orthodox all wound up saying "yeah, I study the Torah all day too, so I qualify."

Especially because seeing the same information in different contexts helps mapping the links between the different contexts and helps dispel incorrect assumptions.

Yes, but this is exactly the point of deduplication - you don't want identical inputs, you want variety. If you want the AI to understand the concept of cats you don't keep showing it the same picture of a cat over and over, all that tells it is that you want exactly that picture. You show it a whole bunch of different pictures whose only commonality is that there's a cat in it, and then the AI can figure out what "cat" means.

They need to fundamentally change big parts of how learning happens and how the algorithm learns to fix this conflict.

Why do you think this?