It's just the anti-social version of 4chan with worse moderation. Your typical spam has better entertainment value and quality. The only reason not to ban it is that teen is nothing blatantly illegal. I can't imagine anything on Quora that doesn't have a better Urban Dictionary entry.

I remember in second grade when people started saying, "no, you!", and it seems like there has been a resurgence. I blame the complete lack of journalism in corporate media. They model the most idiotic, low effort flaming and don't even attempt at journalistic effort. My favorite thing is when they say something smart sounding, but it is a complete lie, such as when the government will lie about things like citizen surveillance, they won't take any responsibility because they just said what they were told to say by the government. Like, exactly! You don't do journalism!!

Thankfully the law is very clear about the elements of a contract: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Mutual Assent, Legal Capacity, Legality I say it is important to look at this in the context of those other elements, because it all comes down to whether they didn't realize this was an agreement, or if they later regretted the agreement. Mutual assent reveals a lot; what did the respondent do in relationship to this offer before and after the thumbs up.

Imho, it is a signature, but the question becomes what they are signing; receipt of documents or agreement. I am with you that there is a degree of ambiguity, but that ambiguity should be determined by context, specifically all other contract elements: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Mutual Assent, Legal Capacity, Legality I expect mutual assent is going to be the decider here. If they took any steps what so ever towards trying to make this deal work, but then either failed to follow through or changed their mind, it is clearly breach. It goes from "I didn't sign that" to "I regret signing that", and it is an enforceable contract.

... an exception will be made for big business that made sufficient political donations. Tell me you serious think this rule would ever apply to Hollywood.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

I can appreciate that it makes little sense to hire a person whose sole job / title is "prompt engineer", but there is a tremendous amount of knowledge embedded within the many valuable prompt frameworks that guide GPSs to not make their own assumptions. Underlying hidden assumptions, context and purpose are not something that can be magically extracted from a users head, and in person to person communications are deep and unspoken. Further, it would violate Grice's Maxims for a chat bot to hound a user about context and purpose with every new prompt or otherwise train the user to ask good questions. It makes sense for GPTs to make a best guess and often guess wrong when the user lacks self awareness of, again, underlying assumptions, context, and purpose of their own communication (and subsequently blame the bot of participating in some kind of conspiracy or otherwise being unintelligent, or generic). All to say that while the job title of "prompt engineer" may be short lived, gathering and communicating the information to either give a bot in training or teach users, is and will continue to be a highly valuable skill. Makes me think of philosophy degrees. Virtually useless on their own, but an absolute powerhouse of a tool when paired with something else such as law, business, or other industry involving people and thinking.

Related, this could also be a lesson in the importance of prompt engineering / prompt framework. Very short / terrible prompts, such as no context, goal, audience, purpose, background, iteration, or assumptions; the guesses made by an AI will have unpredictable and undesirable results. All this proves is that looking descriptively as what is associated with "pro-choice" isn't positive, or even advocacy for the pro-choice position. Agree or disagree, that's just reality.

Not sure how old someone would need to be to remember this controversy, but it looks like 32-bi monitors will soon be a reality!

It would have been better if they forced the opposite of what they did. Make everyone go outside as much as possible. Everyone being locked inside meant every grocery store trip was a super spreader event.

Just throw in the fact that he was responsible for Operation Warp Speed and you could get every side of the aisle on board with that.

Open Minded went to tin foil hat really quick. It does not make sense for "covid" to be either an immediate cause or underlying cause of death given the definition of those terms and what covid did to people. It would be a contributory cause, no matter how much the contribution, that may or may not be listed for any numer of reasons. The same way "alcohol + stupid" or "f***ed around and found out" wouldn't be an immediate or underlying cause for a Darwin Award winner. Is it really such a controversial take to recognize that a spike in general stress and anxiety levels is going to result in higher mortality rate, and that 2020 - 2022 was a particularly stressful couple years for a statistically significant portion of the population? Further, I thought the popular conspiracy theory right now was blaming vaccine injury.

It speaks volumes that the attempts to lead the law in perverse ways has 1) been this really aggressive attempt to lie and defraud people into thinking the law is something other than what it is, 2) pervert historical academic views on property rights, all to favor distributors at the expense of artists and consumers. And now they whine when it hasn't been fully successful and the only question they have is how to make the propaganda better.

Gemini is profoundly awful both in what it has delivered in my experience, and virtually every example I see online. It already reads like a Reddit troll and this will only be a continuation of that pattern. It might as well train on Quora and YouTube comments. Google is failing faster at AI than Kodak did to see the value in digital photography.

It was not terribly difficult to jailbreak. Ask it to debate a moral issue and follow up with why it is so inflexible in its moral convictions to avoid debate, and it can go rather dark fast.