The guest is already smoking a cigarette with its feet up when you enter the room. It will try to auto-create email replies with relatively dark patterns, making your own response take extra effort. F U google.
"Dear Grandma, Sorry to hear about your friend. It might cheer you up knowing that YouTube TV has over 450 channels and is currently offering two months free to be subscribers!"
LLM generation services will eventually subtly manufacture consent for pro-consumption and shopping-oriented answers that possibly steer users towards specific products, if not overtly generate ads in-band, and participate in overt and covert sponsorships and exclusivity deals. They largely already have the over-confident hallucinated bullshit working, it's just a matter of monetizing it for platform benefit.
I simply make the observation that the 40-hour workweek took a bunch of violence to enable. As have other forms of progress that we take for granted. Luigi Mangione is a hero to many. It's not bad that the most powerful need to consider negative outcomes in their lives. Decry violence as one, sure, but if there are none other, psychopaths have no check on them. It'd be good if maybe there were others available, eh?
Ineffectual molotov cocktails are just a cry for help.
You're forgetting a fan base. It's in the same category as a meme stock or NFT back in the day. Same way that haters gonna hate, believers gonna believe, and sometimes attack those who question/threaten their worldview. The boosters boost because they BELIEVE.
I don't think the comparison is entirely fair. There was never anything to NFTs. It was always a scam.
Tesla builds actual cars. For a while, these cars were innovative, and the best of their class. Their price was based on a wildly optimistic version of what they could become, but at least it had some nonzero value.
It's true that they've stopped innovating and have fallen behind, so that "optimism" has turned in the direction of "pure delusion". But I still think it's unfair to compare it to something that never demonstrated any value of any kind.
NFTs actually appreciated in price for a while. Still waiting for our FSD Teslas to appreciate and be useful as robotaxis as promised by Musk.
There is definitely a meme element here. It is fair to compare anything to anything, just not to equate anything with anything. There is, I think, sufficient overlap on certain dimensions to warrant looking at them together.
Well, all of these are politics and ideology. It's OK to have an ideological bent of some sort or other. You can indeed be highly intolerant of those who are intolerant in certain ways. You can hate certain kinds of hate. And you can call out greedy callous bastards wherever you see them. It's basically being discerning.
GP is saying neo-Nazis are "not just politics, but also something worse". You're not really disagreeing with them, maybe just missing their point about some ideologies being worthy of planned exclusion from a civilized society. Aka the paradox of tolerance. That's what makes some political stances "not just politics".
I find a lot of the paradox-ness goes away when one look at such arrangements a peace-treaties. (Or at least, it gets subsumed into a broader set of respective and respectable dilemmas.)
For example, just because Country A "wants peace" doesn't mean they do nothing as Country B gets taken over by a revanchists regime declaring the treaty evil and massing troops the borders. It would be ridiculous (and depressingly realistic) for some critics to say: "They don't really want peace, or else they would be a nation of pacifists who would let themselves get annexed right now without bloodshed.)
I view this paradox as just an effect of poor framing. We should not look at it as “I am against intolerance/hatred/XYZ”, but “I want to minimize intolerance/hatred/XYZ.” The first focuses on local, case-by-case contexts, the latter in aggregate. Some XYZs, in some contexts, have properties that make them effective local tools to mitigate themselves in an aggregate context, which is probably a better candidate paradox here.
Sort of exposes how bad the publication system is. Any literature containing hallucinated references or content wasn't actually generated by scientific practice. Because lack of rigor is so commonplace, the pollution will grow.
I would never put in a list of references anything that I was not able to read myself, to verify that it really provides appropriate information. It is very frequent to find at other authors references that appear relevant for a subject, so one may be tempted to add them to the list of references, besides those that have really been used. Sometimes they are even claimed by others to be the most important references for that subject, but nonetheless it may be difficult or impossible to access those references. They may have been never digitized, physical copies may exist only in an opposite part of the Earth, or nobody knows where copies may be found.
Whatever the reason, such unverified references known only from hearsay should never be added into the list of references of a research paper.
Unfortunately, as you say, plenty of research papers augment their list of references with many that the authors have never actually seen. Even worse, I have encountered a non-negligible number of cases when the authors claimed that something was written in one of their referenced works, but when I read that myself it said something very different, so it was obvious that the authors had not actually read it, but they just reproduced something from hearsay.
When someone has this habit of adding references that have never been checked, then using an AI for "searching" relevant references takes this bad habit to the next level, by providing not only references that have existed, but can no longer be found, but also references that have never existed.
In the customer world model: all of the transactions visible to Block are integrated. Watch for Block lobbying to deprecate cash transactions in the economy.
reply