You’re missing 1.5: Make it impossible for people who every professional medical association of good repute says said medication help, get the medication by prescription.
You’re missing 1.5: Make it impossible for people who every professional medical association of good repute says said medication help, get the medication by prescription.
You don’t think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What’s the lower bound on significance as you see things?
To be clear, it’s obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it’s likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.
So for the 99% there is an abolishment of private property, leaving only personal property and public property, everyone has an equal share, and the state has been dissolved?
Because if not, at least one of us doesn’t understand communism. It’s entirely possible we both don’t. Would you be willing to clarify the term as you understand it?
pays a subscription
Subscriptions don’t work
Little confused by this one, but yeah. I can’t afford subscriptions, and I also can’t afford the products and services the ads are for. Ads are just pollution in my consciousness, so why should I reduce my QoL for no benefit to anyone? If a creator says that if you use adblock, don’t watch me, I won’t. Site blocks adblockers, I don’t use it. What else am I supposed to do, when I make less than a living and don’t really have better options?
Listening to Peter talk about GPT as if it was an all comprehending oracle when he was interviewed on Hannah Reloaded was unsettling, because I know he’s not alone in thinking it’s (paraphrased) “a pattern detecting intelligence, that can see things we can’t” my brother in Christ it is a better Markov chain engine.
I’m just saying, I game on a Windows 10 machine, use Firefox for a browser, and have never ever had this problem.
Nobody, monkeys included, deserves to die the way those monkeys did.
I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.
It’s an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don’t know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn’t screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.