I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.…
I think a lot of it is that he spends much more strategically and with lots of strings attached. He also does a lot of work to basically indoctrinate folks who aren’t big players and fund them until they are - JD Vance being a prime example. He’s basically developed into a cult leader for rich wannabes and ends up owning their asses.
He won about 3 out of every 5 states - most of which have low populations. By percentage, he didn’t surpass 50% nationwide and only won by 1.5%.
Great photo on the article. Is Trump aging super fast now? He looks significantly older than he did even back in January.
The Man With One Red Shoe is much worse than Joe Versus the Volcano. And if made for TV movies count, you have to throw in Mazes and Monsters. Oh and Bonfire of the Vanities was a famous flop. And Volunteers was pretty bad. People forget how bad some of his early stuff was.
Hell, both Forrest Gump and Castaway were tremendously overrated. Also the unwatchable Cloud Atlas and the stupid Dan Brown movies.
<suddenly dawns on me that Tom Hanks makes a lot of bad movies>
…Trump may escalate pressure on allies by leveraging America’s financial dominance
“America’s financial dominance”?! Unless he has a time machine, not quite sure how that’s going to happen.
My ideal trifecta - fresh tomatoes, green olives, pepperoni
If it’s an air quality monitor, they likely need to move it around to get different sampling areas.
In casual conversation IRL, if someone made this claim, I’d assume good faith. Or even in a reply to an existing discussion of Snopes. But OP decided to make a post without verifying their information and then went through and defended that take in the comments when people explained the actual facts to them. This wasn’t done in good faith, it would appear.
This has the same energy as the folks running around doing a disinfo op on Wikipedia. None of this is true and either OP wildly misunderstood the situation or they’re intentionally being deceitful.
I probably didn’t explain well enough. Consuming media (books, TV, film, online content, and video games) is predominantly a passive experience. Obviously video games less so, but all in all, they only “adapt” within the guardrails of gameplay. These AI chatbots however are different in their very formlessness - they’re only programmed to maintain engagement and rely on the LLM training to maintain an illusion of “realness”. And because they were trained on all sorts of human interactions, they’re very good at that.
Humans are unique in how we continually anthropomorphize tons of not only inert, lifeless things (think of someone alternating between swearing at and pleading to a car that won’t start) but abstract ideals (even scientists often speak of evolution “choosing” specific traits). Given all of that, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be worried about a teen with a still developing prefrontal cortex and who is in the midst of working on understanding social dynamics and peer relationships to embue an AI chatbot with far more “humanity” than is warranted. Humans seem to have an anthropomorphic bias in how we relate to the world - we are the primary yardstick we use to measure and relate everything around us, and things like AI chatbots exploit that to maximum effect. Hell, the whole reason the site mentioned in the article exists is that this approach is extraordinarily effective.
So while I understand that on a cursory look, someone objecting to it comes across as a sad example of yet another moral panic, I truly believe this is different. For one, we’ve never had access to such a lively psychological mirror before and it’s untested waters; and two, this isn’t some objection on some imagined slight against a “moral authority” but based in the scientific understanding of specifically teen brains and their demonstrated fragility in certain areas while still under development.
Yes, and it’s clear that they wouldn’t have done an outright temp ban for the length of time they did if you didn’t already have the history you did. Quit painting this as “They couldn’t handle me voicing my opinions” when it was entirely “This guy just won’t stop trolling”. No one really cares about your opinions, they cared about you trolling the community. You trying to make a martyr of yourself is ridiculous.
I got a two-week ban in a community (for posting duplicate article from different sources)
Dude, you got it for that AND a history of trolling, even just after coming off a previous temp ban for trolling. Quit lying.
I understand what you mean about the comparison between AI chatbots and video games (or whatever the moral panic du jour is), but I think they’re very much not the same. To a young teen, no matter how “immersive” the game is, it’s still just a game. They may rage against other players, they may become obsessed with playing, but as I said they’re still going to see it as a game.
An AI chatbot who is a troubled teen’s “best friend” is different and no matter how many warnings are slapped on the interface, it’s going to feel much more “real” to that kid than any game. They’re going to unload every ounce of angst into that thing, and by defaulting to “keep them engaged”, that chatbot is either going to ignore stuff it shouldn’t or encourage them in ways that it shouldn’t. It’s obvious there’s no real guardrails in this instance, as if he was talking about being suicidal, some red flags should’ve popped up.
Yes the parents shouldn’t have allowed him such unfettered access, yes they shouldn’t have had a loaded gun that he had access to, but a simple “This is all for funsies” warning on the interface isn’t enough to stop this from happening again. Some really troubled adults are using these things as defacto therapists and that’s bad too. But I’d be happier if lawmakers were much more worried about kids having access to this stuff than accessing “adult sites”.
No idea on the song, may have better luck identifying the singer, and working backwards from there? Maybe something by Fine Young Cannibals? Certainly the most notable falsetto that comes to mind for that era for me.
That’s certainly where the term originated, but usage has expanded. I’m actually fine with it, as the original idea was about the pattern recognition we use when looking at faces, and I think there’s similar mechanisms for matching other “known” patterns we see. Probably with some sliding scale of emotional response on how well known the pattern is.
In that case, I think the whole question is moot. The umbrella term of thingamawidget is not both modular and versatile, but its constituent parts are individually. “The thingamawidget with versatile software and modular hardware is…” would then be the more accurate description.
Otherwise it’s like describing a brownie as wet and bitter because the egg is wet and the raw cocoa is bitter.
I’ve heard it used that way - basically taken to mean “It’s over that way in a straight line” but then usually followed by directions on how to get there via a twisty route because there’s no direct path there.
What a fucking waste of resources