Some early episodes have to be taken with some leniency as the show was just starting to work out the characters and ideas. Much like a TOS fan would watch the pilot episode and see Spock very animated and even smiling at one point and just shrug it off knowing that’s not how he ends up.

The best version of peer-reviewed.

I mean if you were charged like $2 if you got caught speeding 30mph over the limit, would you feel like you need to stop? Hell, a better analogy is probably what, 5 cents?

These two? I don’t know, but I can’t help think they are both using the other. I was just talking in general, as there are a lot of mixed faith relationships out there somehow.

If these two had an honest established relationship and he suddenly started talking to the public about how she should convert (and she obviously hasn’t), that’s definitely a betrayal of trust. But look who we’re talking about…

How can it be a healthy relationship when either or both sides thinks the other is probably condemned to some eternal punishment and yet is okay with them not believing. At least if one is atheist they can realize it’s just a belief and nothing more, but still… that person thinks you’re doomed and yet is fine with it, or conversely is trying to convert you all the time, which is its own issue.

The glass contents are at the halfway mark, and we’re being told it’s full. Call it pessimism, call it realism, whatever.

The kicker is, what is in the glass is also diluted. Yes, I’m fun at parties.

I guess. Global air travel contributes about 2.5% of total CO2 emissions. This is 10% reduction of US aircraft, so multiply whatever percentage that is of global to the other two and that’s how much less there is. It doesn’t include any adjustments, like more car travel.

Won’t make much of a dent in things like the increase of power use emissions thanks to AI.

They all have different personalities. Even among the ones like this that are bent on attacking everything, some do it more playfully and even with minimal clawing, while others are nightmare devils that are in kill mode. Who later are curled up in your lap all lovable.

You’d be so correct if I had said “artificial intelligence”. But that wasn’t what I was talking about. “AI” absolutely has been hijacked by the companies and the media to mean something that it is not. LLMs are not intelligent.

Want to get into the nitpicking? To talk about actual intelligence we’d be using “AGI”, not “AI”. Also, ELIZA is capitalized, as I was around when we got to play with it in BASIC in the first personal computers. Again, not intelligent, just a lot of IF-THEN clauses. ELIZA was more a demonstration of how people can be fooled easily, and boy, they sure can be now.

Technically they were acquired by Boeing in a 1997 merger, but this is the first time I’ve seen them referred to as Boeing planes. Maybe they’re trying to trick the algorithm and beat other headlines using MD-11.

Challenge Rainbolt and zi8gzag to find where you are and send a plane.

“Backlash” means some negative media coverage. Let me know when it starts to mean consequences. We repeatedly see people being illegally attacked, kidnapped, and abused, and I haven’t seen any consequences for them.

You’re correct, AI is a misnomer that was hijacked because it was far more marketable to the average person than LLM.

A civilization that can add enough gases to Mars to create close to Earth’s atmosphere isn’t concerned with minor maintenance like that. A small comet body’s worth every hundred years (if even that often), child’s play.

I would question if it’s fast anymore either. In my days of working fast food long ago we had parameters of customer quality and speed we had to meet. I do not see any evidence that any of the chains care about any of that anymore. Why would they? They give shit for shit prices and shit speed, and people keep coming back for more. Capitalism rule, why do better when it’s not needed or required?

Then why is 15/hr still such a hot topic of resistance when that number was a living wage minimum amount decades ago? And what is the federal minimum wage still at? Then there’s the issue of underemployment in both lowered expectations of what’s available for a person’s skill set, and also how many hours are actually available at whatever the rate is offered (i.e., if you give an employee a job at 20/hr but only give them 15 hours a week, that’s not a living wage).

There’s a lot of problems beyond just wage growth, and I would suggest that even if wages did start increasing faster than inflation for a while now, that just means they’re “only” too low a little less. People wouldn’t be working multiple jobs for each household member to make ends meet if wages were close to appropriate for cost of living needs.

As a side topic, that’s something that’s always fascinated me. Looking around at the various vehicles and shops that most people just see as background noise, there are so many industries that we take for granted unless we need that particular product or service. Lots of things done in the middle of the supply chain that the average consumer never sees. Commerce is an enormous machine with billions of hidden parts to it, and it’s amazing it functions like it does even in times of crisis.

The next hard part is the dust. Lunar and Martian dust is a huge problem to overcome, and something we don’t have to deal with here. Then there’s radiation, although there’s things we can do to lessen that problem.

One issue is that AI in its various forms makes it far easier than it had been to use such a tool without understanding what the limitations are. Garbage in, garbage out still applies, but if the user can’t tell the difference, the garbage gets spread as quality work. This had led to the term “AI slop” which has morphed into a general “I don’t like this post” label.

Another bigger issue is the origin of the data for training, which unfortunately has tainted good uses for these tools (when used within their limits, as stated before). I agree with this concern, but once LLMs and related AI became freely open to the public, that ship has sailed and even if there was a company that could even prove its AI was trained only with legitimately obtained information (which could make it more limited than the ones out there), would anyone believe them?

A related issue on training would be how the AI was trained (ignoring the problem of the source of the data). The very fact that LLMs were modeled to give proper and positive answers only leads to the conclusion that it has long moved from a research project to find AGI into a marketing ploy to give the best impression on the ignorant public to profit from. This gets into the “AI slop” area of seemingly good results to the average user when it is not, but rather than slop it’s deception.

They are not intelligent at all, so applying such a study label is an anthropomorphic action.

The title makes a suggestion that the article itself doesn’t lead to. It’s not the AI that is creating a service of being more skilled than it appears, but rather it is imparting or enhancing that impression on the users that don’t understand the limitations of the tool.

To use an analogy that is a bit too extreme, if someone thinks that a chainsaw is a great tool when using it properly and tries to use it for other things, it’s not the chainsaw that’s overextending its abilities…

Or to put it another way… it’s always prudent to first eliminate the possibility of user error first, as that’s a likely source of the problem.

Or another way… it’s always the human’s fault, until it’s not.