Mama told me not to come.
She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.
I get that. My point is that gynecocracy is about people in power, so I was thinking about those in power at the universities (deans and professors), not enrollment. If enrollment is higher, wouldn’t that have more to do with K-12 education (which is female dominated largely due to crappy pay, so won’t likely be a primary breadwinner)?
The left are free thinkers
Idk, there are a lot of leftist echo chambers. Please avoid anything close to the “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” argument.
But yes, agree with much of the rest. I also think there are a lot of trolls from China in the mix as well.
Eh, I think that only applies to Hexbear. The ml instances seem to hate anything US (or western, for that matter) without picking sides.
US universities “citadels of gynecocracy”
Uhh… I don’t know about the stats, but universities still seem to be male dominated. Neither the premise nor conclusion makes any sense.
Precisely. Yet so many LLMs make outrageous claims, or at least fail to make the limitations obvious.
My point is that it’s not on the user to see past the BS, it’s on the provider of the service. The company’s argument is that they’re not responsible because computer code is protected by the first amendment. I think that misses the whole issue, which is that users may not be made sufficiently aware of the limitations and dangers of the service.
NATO is a defensive alliance. It poses no threat to anyone unless they attack a NATO country. It’s like a porcupine, just leave it alone and everyone is happy.
Russia could probably join as WL well if they wanted. Ideally, all countries join, which would probably eliminate war entirely.
Yet they’re far from a majority. As long as the populace is sufficiently educated and the rule of law is observed, the Nazis should be largely kept at bay.
If you can identify them, it justifies flying over there to punch them in the face. I’m sure Indiana Jones can find some ancient relic there to justify the trip.
Or stab you through the heart with a barb.
Idk, how do you explain geysers? If you taste the water runoff, it’s very clearly carbonated (and nasty with a very metallic taste).
Well yeah, LLMs don’t have logic, so their output isn’t constrained by logic.
Kill yourself” shouldn’t be free speech.
It absolutely should, at least in the sense of those specific words.
That said, there may be non-speech violations when we look at the totality of the situation. Trying to get people to kill themselves should absolutely be illegal, and in that sense saying “kill yourself” could be part of a larger crime. But saying it without intent or knowledge that the other person might follow through shouldn’t be illegal.
no one can be held responsible for what the AI outputs
Disagree again. The creator of the AI should have some responsibility here.
If they sell it for some purpose, and it causes harm instead of fulfilling that purpose, they should be on the hook for that. If they don’t want responsibility, they need to very publicly say they’re providing it without any warranty or implication of it solving any particular problem, which is why FOSS licenses put that into their terms.
So either they give up all responsibility and don’t advertise it as solving any particular problem, or they take responsibility.
Whether the company is held at fault depends on what contracts the person had, whether expressed or implied.
Sure, and how much would you pay/refuse to preserve it? If I offered $1k? Surely there’s a number there.
The value to you is how much you’re willing to pay/refuse. There’s no absolute value for anything, but there is a maximum and an average.
I don’t have a solution, but definitely find a way to care less. We only have so much time on this rock, so we might as well enjoy it.
Yeah, what good is an assistant gunner if it doesn’t shoot?
Maybe I’ll try it then. It would be a lot easier than running cable…
In which case the monetary value is the amount they’re willing to pay or pass up to have/retain the experience.
How about this, do a profit sharing agreement with channels. If a channel makes money from YouTube, YouTube gets a cut, and let the channel decide whether to run ads, use sponsor segments, post affiliate links, etc. If they choose to not monetize at all, they pay a monthly fee for hosting.
Yes, I obviously wouldn’t bring a logical argument against someone like this, but it’s fun to point out logical fallacies in groups like this.