𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

I do not think many democrats have insisted that. Biden did considerably better on content, he actually got his facts right whereas Trump lied constantly. But presentation is everything, and Biden failed horribly at that.

Of course, the day after Biden seems fine again at the rally he did. Really unfortunate for him.

Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there’s still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They’re nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.

100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.

We’re nowhere near the potential capacity for energy production from renewables, and already we’re capable of doing 100% renewable power production.

Potential capacity is really not the issue.

We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can’t we?

It’s because we stopped building them. We have academic knowledge on how to do it but not the practical/technical know-how. A few countries do it because they’re doing a ton of reactors, but those don’t come cheap either.

Renewables will not cover your usage.

False. Multiple countries are already able to run on 100% renewables for prolonged periods of time. The bigger issue is what to do with excess power. Battery solutions can cover moments where renewables produce a bit less power.

My point is more that the sides aren’t symmetrical, but for twin-stick shooters it makes more sense if they are (which they are for DualSense).

For platformers you’re right, but for twin-stick shooters you’re using the shoulder buttons/triggers far more than the front buttons, and you are constantly using both sticks. And those happen to be fairly popular on PlayStation consoles.

Turing the wheel of the car like crazy when they on a straight road.

Just drive like Nicholas Cage drives.

This was just merged.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a response from OpenAI, it could well be some bot platform that serves this API response.

I’m pretty sure someone somewhere has created a product that allows you to generate bot responses from a variety of LLM sources. And if whatever is interacting with it is simply reading the response body and stripping out what it expects to be there to leave only the message, I could easily see a fairly bad programmer create something that outputs something like this.

It’s certainly possible this is just a troll account, but it could also just be shit software.

Aaand here’s your misunderstanding.

All messages detected by whatever algorithm/AI the provider implemented are sent to the authorities. The proposal specifically says that even if there is some doubt, the messages should be sent. Family photo or CSAM? Send it. Is it a raunchy text to a partner or might one of them be underage? Not 100% sure? Send it. The proposal is very explicit in this.

Providers are additionally required to review a subset of the messages sent over, for tweaking w.r.t. false positives. They do not do a manual review as an additional check before the messages are sent to the authorities.

If I send a letter to someone, the law forbids anyone from opening the letter if they’re not the intended recipient. E2E encryption ensures the same for digital communication. It’s why I know that Zuckerberg can’t read my messages, and neither can the people from Signal (metadata analysis is a different thing of course). But with this chat control proposal, suddenly they, as well as the authorities, would be able to read a part of the messages. This is why it’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Thankfully this nonsensical proposal didn’t get a majority.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN

Here’s the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it’s not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc… as well.

You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you’re a liar.

Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I’ll wait.

The point is is that it should never, under no circumstances monitor and eavesdrop private chats. It’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Also, please explain what “specific circumstances” you are referring to. The current proposal doesn’t limit the scanning of messages in any way whatsoever.

It can’t be effective. The risk of false-positives is huge.

It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don’t want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don’t belong.

People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.

It’s a bit more like stepping on the road in front of a vehicle that isn’t moving, and then hitting the gas pedal and claiming “shouldn’t have stepped on the road!”. It’s not wrong, but choosing this method to deal with it is simply not necessary.

If a child steals something, is keeping them at gunpoint a proportionate response? Sure, kid shouldn’t steal and just holding someone at gunpoint won’t kill them, but it’s also an unnecessary risk.

The penalty for something stupid isn’t death though. If less lethal options are available, why not use those?

Perhaps it was being influenced by the chat history. But try asking how many r’s in raspberry, it does get that consistently wrong for me. And you can ask it those followup questions to easily get it to spout nonsense, and that was mostly my point; figuring out if you’re talking to an LLM is fairly trivial.

Also important: the shows show a very personal narrative about the protagonist enduring oppression themselves. The media does occasionally try to show that, but it’s hard to empathise from a distance with experiences so traumatic.

My point is that telling it a right answer is wrong often causes LLMs to completely shit the bed. They used to argue with you nonsensically, now they give you a different answer (often also wrong).

The only question missing at the start was "How many r’s are there in the word ‘veryberry’. I think raspberry also worked when I tried it. This was ChatGPT4-O. I did mark all the answers as bad, so perhaps they’ve fixed this one by now.

Still, it’s remarkably trivial to get an LLM to provide a clearly non-human response.