Surely you have better things to do with your time than correct idiots. And it serves the monkey urge to dominance-hump. So regard your motive there with great suspicion.
So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?”
I was shooting for "neutral you".
The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.
Dominance humping is immensely popular among us humans. I assumed that you were also a fan. Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.
I actually did have a vague idea in that general direction.
But that's rather beside my point. I mean, the AI definitely offered these answers. The answers are definitely gender biased. Offering that it's merely an artifact of the LLM technology is definitely a terrible excuse for that.
And given that LLMs are well known to be tweaked to align better with the philosophical styles of the hour, doubly so.
Well given that the bias is generally considered a bad thing, explanations absolving them of responsibility for the badness are what is generally called an "excuse".
Everybody privately shit-talks everybody. The phone always listens to it and records it. A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts. Everybody in the world suddenly gets a thousand shit-talking texts from their family, friends and associates. Society dissolves.
That's right. I did. And people who can't see past that particular bit of treebark for the sake of discussing the forest are what we call... oh, something deeply derogatory. I forget. Use your imagination.
My theory is that he was an angry fucked up guy. The rest is rationalization and power.
(The first gives the anger form. The second turns an anonymous crank into a global threat. Consider all the people here who say different things yet seem to be always singing the same song. Consider what would happen if you gave the average angry fucked up guy a billion dollar budget, a giant propaganda machine and an army. Consider what would happen if a cute little mouse grew to the size of a skyscraper)
But you know what, get a few drinks into him in a bar and he was probably pretty chill.
Who is the more idiotic? The idiot, or the one who spends precious time yelling at the idiot for behaving idiotically?
It's easier to inform language with language than with experience.
Because 1) language requires no translation from experience 2) language is relatively easy to record, communicate and analyze. ...
Google AI is gender biased.
Social nuke
Everybody privately shit-talks everybody. The phone always listens to it and records it. A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts. Everybody in the world suddenly gets a thousand shit-talking texts from their family, friends and associates. Society dissolves.
Anon can't go on a field trip