Chatbots often read as neurodivergent because they usually model one of our common constructed personalities: the faithful and professional helper that charms adults with their giftedness. Anything adults experienced was fascinating because it was an alien world that’s more logical than the world of kids that were our age, so we would enthusiastically chat with adults about subjects we’ve memorized but don’t yet understand, like science and technology.
Since recursion in humans has no commonly understood definition, Geoff and ChatGPT are each working off of diverging understandings. If users don’t validate definitions, getting abstract with a chatbot would lead to conceptual breakdown… that does not sound fun to experience.
You might be reading a lot into vague, highly conceptual, highly abstract language, but your conclusion is worth brainstorming about.
Personally, I think Geoff Lewis just discovered that people are starting to distrust him and others, and he used ChatGPT to construct an academic thesis that technically describes this new concept called “distrust,” void of accountability on his end.
“Why are people acting this way towords me? I know they can’t possibly distrust me without being manipulated!”
No wonder AI can replace middle-management…
And he had bespoke animations that were kinda charming
If that dude got proper support, he could have done wonders; he made animated icons for his 16-color assembly-coded OS, and a simple 3d racer! All by himself!
I’m guessing OP means the build quality, as defined by the mechanical and material standards that are needed to recreate the keyboard.
Oh haha cause it wouldn’t be recorded
21 is very specific
Exactly!!! If we’re already assuming they served in the military, why do we need any more information than their name? What is the end goal of the dox?
My apologies, I did not read the article on the assumption Meta would choose the irresponsible option. The article was surprisingly nuanced, and I hope the enforcement of Meta’s policies are equally nuanced.
Isn’t it incredibly dangerous to ban “Zionist” only because it’s misused? It can be used to legitimately describe people who have a vested interest in Isreal occupying Palestine. I understand it’s used as a slur, but banning otherwise normal words will make the discourse much more difficult.
It’s kind of adorable, like a child designing an album cover using concepts they recognize but don’t understand
You are correct, CDs can reproduce the human audio spectrum perfectly, IF AND ONLY IF certain rules are followed, and I think that’s why earlier CDs sounded weird. For example: how good were low pass filters when digital sound first arrived?
Abusing a child is wrong. Feeling the urge to do so doesn’t make someone evil, so long as they recognize it’s wrong to do so. The best way to stop kids from being abused is to teach why it is wrong and help those with the urges to manage them. Calling people evil detracts from that goal.
In the link you shared, Gemini gave a nuanced answer. What would you rather it say?
I just wish Linux had a way of EQing my headphones and virtualizing surround sound like with HeSuVi. That’s the barrier for me personally
Spend the night in VR chat KMart, there’s always something bizarre happening
Damnit I didn’t see the acronym till the end 😂
You COULD go to five or six stores, or just one! ☝️
Most people are cool with some AI when you show the small, non-plagarative stuff. It sucks that “AI” is such a big umbrella term, but the truth is that the majority of AI (measured in model size, usage, and output volume) is bad and should stop.
Neural Network technology should not progress at the cost of our environment, short term or long term, and shouldn’t be used to dilute our collective culture and intelligence. Let’s not pretend that the dangers aren’t obvious and push for regulation.