Law enforcement is not permitted to randomly pull over vehicles. They provided no justification. This is clearly illegal.

His actions show he is absolutely not.

They are not popular. Like 30% of the voting eligible public voted for him.

No it’s more of a technical discussion. Many people might believe that in order to avoid toxicity, you just train a model on “good” non-toxic data and then apply toxicity removal techniques to address emergent toxicity that the model might spit out. This paper is saying they found it more effective to train the model on a small percentage of “bad” toxic data on purpose, then apply those same toxicity removal techniques. For some reason, that actually generated less total toxicity. It’s an interesting result. A wild guess on my part, but I’m thinking training the model with toxic content “sharpened” the toxicity when it was generated, making it easier for those removal tools to identify it.

They don’t actually care about the unborn either. They just want women to suffer, that’s always been the only goal.

Neither is derivative of the other, they both grow from a common source. It’s like saying humans evolved from chimps, it’s not true, both came from a common ancestor that itself is neither chimp or human.

Probably Alien Dawn, it’s basically a 3D Rimworld clone

As is always the case with fascists, the laws will apply to the people they don’t like and be ignored for the people they do like. So long as Victoria’s Secret’s CEO continues paying the bribes, it’s not porn.

Destroyed no matter the cause? I’ve heard of laws like that for intentionally cutting down healthy trees, but it never applied to natural causes.

This concept is very often misinterpreted by these tech CEOs because they’re terrified of becoming the next Yahoo or Kodak or cab company or AskJeeves or name any other company that was replaced by something with more “innovation” (aka venture capital). It’s all great they’ll lose wealth.

The underlying concepts are sound though. Think of a small business like a barber shop or restaurant. Even a very good owner/operator will eventually get old and retire and if they haven’t expanded to train their successor before they do, the business will close. Which is fine, the business served the purpose of making a living for that person. Compare with McDonalds, they expanded and grew so the business could continue past the natural lifetime of a single restaurant.

A different example of stagnation is Kodak. They famously had the chance to grow their business into digital cameras early on, their researchers and engineers were on the cutting edge of that technology. But the executives rejected expansion in favor of sticking with the higher profit margins (at the time) of film cameras. And now they’re basically irrelevant. Expanding on this example, even digital cameras are irrelevant, within 20 years of Kodak’s fall. The market around low- to mid-end stand-alone cameras had disappeared in favor of phones.

So the real lesson is not so much infinite growth like these tech CEOs believe in, the lesson is adaptability to a changing world and changing technology, which costs money in the form of research, development, and risk taking trying to set up production on products you’re not sure will sell, but might replace your current offerings.

Companies aren’t investing to achieve AGI as far as I’m aware, that’s not the end game so I this title is misinformation. Even if AGI was achieved it’d be a happy accident, not the goal.

The goal of all these investments is to convince businesses to replace their employees with AI to the maximum extent possible. They want that payroll money.

The other goal is to cut out all third party websites from advertising revenue. If people only get information through Meta or Google or whatever, they get to control what’s presented. If people just take their AI results at face value and don’t actually click through to other websites, they stay in the ecosystem these corporations control. They get to sell access to the public, even more so than they do now.

That’s because no human is actually reviewing anything on Reddit. It’s all keywords and AI, and they didn’t care how often it gets it wrong as long as they don’t get negative coverage in the news.

I think it actually is interesting if you’re going to call out humans as a species of animal!

All across species from unicellular to megafauna, from plants to fungus, you can find mechanisms used to defend an individual’s physical territory. Ants and bees from the same species will fight and kill others colony members of they stray into their territory. Bears will fight and kill other bears. Our closest relatives, chimps, will go to war with neighboring chimp bands.

Artificial borders are humans way of saying “this is my territory enter at your own risk”. The REALLY interesting thing is that we have established systematic exceptions to the behaviors we see in nature. “Ask us before you come and you can visit and be safe here from those that enforce our territory.”

The temporary nature is unique, many social animals will permanently adopt an outsider into their group on occasion, equivalent to immigration, but I’m not aware of any that have pre-agreed temporary violations of group territory.

Americans are not a hive mind. The ones who mourn his loss are not the ones in power happily sending aid to Israel. Just like not every Palestinian participated in Oct 7.

They had to reject it because any religion with a creation myth specifically says how the god created people. To accept an alternative story would reject the notion of the book as truth.

The religious are not looking for answers, they already have all the answers by definition of their holy book or whatever. They’re looking for confirmation bias and reject anything that goes against that.

We’re you already familiar with Linux or follow a guide? Lot of products I’m not familiar with there.

Well yeah. If you trace it backwards, before fiat, what was commodity backed currency? What inherent value is there to gold and silver? Back then there was little industrial use, it was just useful as something to trade for other things.

So going back further, at it’s core, currency is just a middle man to bartering. Instead of trading the grain you labored to grow for shoes from the cobbler, when you don’t need shoes right now, you take gold/shells/beads knowing you can use them to trade for repairs to your plow from the blacksmith. Currency has always been a social construct, not inherent to the commodity.

This is actually one argument against the hoarding behavior of the ultra wealthy. It disrupts the natural economy and creates unhealthy power dynamics. The rich person can distort labor away from productive things healthy for future development of the society, say by using their vast wealth to pay a ton of farmers to build statues of the rich guy, until suddenly there’s famine because no one is growing food.