Promethiel

You’d think that, but that’s part of the point and magic, and it does not necessarily add up to that point of “leave us both more stressed than ever”.

It still adds up to increasing connection, not decreasing it. The caveat is that the whole leaving room for the other person too is vital, it can’t be overwhelmingly one sided, good or ill.

The human condition includes depressive shit too, and no one is unique in capacity for suffering, only details. That’s still something to bond over.

That’s the true danger of the tools, imo. They aren’t the digital All Seers their makers want to market them as, but they also aren’t the utterly useless slop machines the consensus on the Fediverse appears to vehemently be.

Of course they’re somewhere in-between. Spicy auto complete sounds like a put down but there is spice. I prefer to think of LLMs as word calculators, and I do mean that I have found them analogous in the sense that if you approach them with a similar plan of action as you would an actual calculator, you’ll get similar results.

Difference is of course that math is not fuzzy and open to nuance, and 1+1 will always equal 2.

But language isn’t math, and it’s trickier to get a sense for what the “equations” that will yield results are, so it’s easy to disparage the technology as a concept given (as you rightly point out) the boiling of the planet.

Work has been insisting we tool with an LLM and they’re checking but thankfully my role doesn’t require relying on any facts the machine spits out.

Which is another part of why the technology is so reviled/misunderstood; the part of the LLM that determines the next word isn’t and can’t judge the veracity of it’s output. Any landing on factual info is either a coincidence or the fact that you as the user knew to “coach” things in such a way as to arrive as the most likely output which the user already knew is correct.

Because of the uncertainty, it is simply unwise to take any LLM’s output as factual, as any fact checking capacity isn’t innate but other operations being done on the output, if any.

Then there’s all the other reasons to hate the things like who makes them, how they’re made, how they’re wielded, etc, and I frankly can’t blame anyone for vehemently hating LLM’s as a concept.

But it’s disingenous to think the tech is wholly incapable of anything of merit to anyone and only idiots out there are using it (even if that may still be often the case).

Or put another way: A sailor hidden within the ship’s hold will still drown and die alongside the ones that don’t resist the siren call above and pilot straight for the rocks.

Cool stuff, deployed in maximally foolish ways. I think I rambled a bit there, but hopefully a bit of my point made it across.

“Does it matter I was trying to be nice…” Yes.

The endless march of causality would and will be there with or without out your act, and the energy equilibrium doesn’t care because it can’t, but you can.

The march of all electrons to their lowest energy orbitals isn’t your dance, and you merely pretend at comprehension of time scales not meant for you.

Choose to ameliorate your own suffering, because it matters just as little to the Universe. Take your own medicine and take it without the comforting hypocrisy.

Trivial, smart, and likely amongst the first operational considerations when “real” political advocacy organizations do it.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they had a BYOD policy and the “PAC” exists mainly in three forms: A hastily made app, Leon’s drug fueled rants, and the media’s overestimation.

Not all.

Carriers tend to have internal hangar spaces, repair/loadout spaces, machining capability, assisted takeoff/landing systems on the flight deck, etc.

To “carry” the aircraft and expect them to perform their roles, the carrier has to be a mobile light airfield and not just a deck to land and take off from.

Edit: Not to say they can’t sail or don’t with any of them on the flight deck of course, but that’s maintaining a certain level of readiness that has some posturing inherent. I guess that’s true for all military readiness doctrines.

For someone who grouses about humanity, you’re scorning a ton of them. The only thing I’m angry is I wasted my time trying to get through. Others have explained causality and how absurd it is to expect your mind read. Thank you for wasting the kindness of my explanation of a turn of phrase for someone who amidst their boundaries stated they’re neurodivergent. I love doing that, and that is extreme sarcasm. May you be forever misunderstood.

That was a manner of speech. No one actually cares about your wisdom or level thereof as you gauge it, but you’re ignoring much objectivity in your refusal to acknowledge it was perhaps you who did the minor social error.

They uh, would need to remain capable of speech for that. Surely there’s official act way of stopping that.

There’s many answers but I genuinely fear they’re too lost in the weeds of abstraction.

The truth is still simple; Power is useless to the common* (read: average and averagely distributed) person. It doesn’t grow crops, shoe horses, or help your fellow man, inherently.

The common person has real concerns to worry about, leaving the search of the trappings of power for the uncommon.

Uncommonly good* (read: beneficial for the doer and the common person) is harder than uncommonly evil* (read: beneficial for the doer but detrimental to the common person); this is simply entropy, and it readily maps to humankind’s so called capacity for thought.

That it only takes a bit of shared effort to make lasting structures to help others and fight off sociological entropy is an uncommonly good realization:

The common man has labors to do, the uncommonly good servant a statistical rarity and the uncommonly evil servants and the structures they engender to keep them in support (entropy begets entropy) a hurdle that by the point of realization takes an uncommonly amount of uncommon good to overcome.

TL;DR: Human nature + time + compounding apathy in those in a position to nudge things when they were easier to nudge = a need for collective awakening to course correct. We’ve gilded the lily on our sociological underpinnings but have yet to truly revolutionize, only iterate.

Removed by mod

What a sandwich of a comment. Agreeable point - what a tremendous assumption filled leap - agreeable point. I am reeling.

Lad, women are tenser at first fucking’s because, in theory, you’re both getting used to each other and what most turns on the machinery of arousal. They tend to feel smoother, slicker, and downright hungrily pulling, when a woman is most aroused. You are self owning a tad bit to any one who knows how to lay a proper lovin’.

Case of not seeing the wit for the trees. In the topsy-turvy landscape of the last 8 years or so, the problem is that “dripping with” part. The weirdos do always go for the double-down after all, so adding more starts risking confusion with that tactic of theirs.

I thought I had a problem with taking a point or two and stretching them across a handful of paragraphs. I no longer think I have a problem and indeed have learned a few things to limber up and aim for greater mental gymnastic heights.

You’re not just a fly in history’s wall, to hear you retell it, you can read hearts and minds better’n than most deities too. A graph tells a shaky story but your certainty of the intent of every actor involved is inviolate?

Please don’t write back at me, for the first time in my life, I comprehend the fear of my acquaintanceships and the long rambling.

Believe what you want to believe and may it chase you as you deserve every night.

But keep your goalpost moving grubby mitts from the idea you know words or are any good with them.

Being disingenuous is piss easy and transparent, cool the back patting.

Learn to read what others comment, so that at least you can keep consistency if you’re gonna clutter public forums with your drivel.

You can use every language in the world to define any other word in any other language and it still does not save you from semantic pitfalls and poor rhetoric.

There is. The more they stumble, the more they are questioned. The answers to the question cannot be anything but utmost certainty because “maybe” is simply not a message that sways anyone.

Pretty answers don’t change reality though, so the stumbles continue or even increase leading to more questions and the doubling down. You just can’t do anything else unless you’re ready to commit to another answer.

How do you select the worthwhile content without the use of your opinion or taking the matter to your tastes?

What is the problem they’re so pragmatically a part of? And how do you pin both the content creators needing to eat and the reasonable take of that commenter on the poor Marketing executives who care about neither but just want–actually what do they (end goal of marketing, literally, semantically) want, in your eyes while you’re at it? It is their (the marketing execs) side I take it you’re on, since the commenter you replied to is part of the problem and the creators do “an ad is an ad” things?

Challenge; remember capitalism exists in the world as it must as the beginning of your answer (but if you can make it vanish and it all works out by the end of the answer, that’s cool too as lots of us are looking for that one).

How is that other commenter part of the problem, actually part of the problem suspect?

Beware the (only) highly empathetic too, while you’re at it.

Get the right (wrong) combination and you have:

Someone who can understand and read the changes they are engendering in others, adjust manipulation in real time, feel terrible about it, but be able to justify it to themselves as improving the lot of others if they genuinely lack the intelligence to comprehend the whole “you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink” adage.

Self-awareness is tragically never a guarantee; much less using it to take responsibility for shortcomings.