Thanks for chiming in, and sorry for not getting the joke.

Fair point. Maybe we'll never know.

In encounters with ChatGPT that I have seen, I have noticed that it is (or perhaps was) quite obsequious. It bends over backwards to accommodate its interlocutor, looking for some way to validate what it is told.

But there have been exceptions. For example, flat-earther David Weiss tried to get ChatGPT to confirm (what else) that the earth was flat, but ChatGPT firmly but politely pushed back, explaining what was valid and invalid about the statements Weiss made. I saw an entertaining review of the discussion in several videos on SciManDan's YouTube channel a few months ago. It's worth a look, but please give SciManDan the views, not Weiss.

If you think that an AI "recognizes" you as someone smarter than most of the human population, are you sure you don't have a delusion?

Enjoy your time with your imaginary friend. I suspect "most of the human population" would not be inclined anyway to engage someone with your attitude of superiority.

Came here to say the same thing. I think this is the correct link.

Thanks for the extra info, especially about the family's great care and communication. But one correction: the victim was a woman.

Yep. Disney tried a similar tactic, citing the Disney+ terms of service when one of their guests suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a restaurant at one of their parks. Disney wanted to use the ToS to send the case to arbitration, but relented.

What I meant was that Windows users just expect pretty much everything to be controllable via a GUI. They don't do CLI, even though for some uncommon tasks it is essential. Just like almost all Linux distros that have GUIs for most common things, but not all.

I can't give you a better reason because I'm not the OP. I'm not sure the OP actually has one, other than GUIs being somewhat self-describing in terms of available options. And I can relate to that. But it only takes you so far. Point-and-click becomes point-and-grunt after you gain facility with a system. It replaces a 102-key device with a 2-key device that limits you to what a GUI designer has allowed you to access.

I'd suspect the initialization/configuration steps in the sound subsystem or its audio clients, not the GUI. But I could be wrong.

I have seen similar glitches happen in Windows that "just go away" when you reboot or reattach devices.

What part of Gödel's work do you mean? His Incompleteness Theorem? Because that's not relevant.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem reveals that axiomatic systems cannot, within themselves, reveal all true statements via proof-arguments: being true is a broader category than being provable.

I'm talking about how we cannot determine whether an individual can make more than one free choice under given pre-choice starting-conditions because you cannot duplicate the identical pre-choice starting-conditions in order to find out.

So, you're saying my "test" for free will (assuming we could carry it out, which I claim we can't) could fail to show free will, even if it exists, if a person chooses the same thing every time. In that situation, I would say you cannot tell the difference between someone with free will who always chooses the same thing and someone without free will who in fact has no option but to choose the same thing. And again, we're back to being unable to show the existence of free will.

As I said, I don't think there is a way to settle the question of whether one actually has a choice. And I'm not hearing you say there is one either. Claiming that predictable behavior does not rule out choice does nothing to support the existence of such a choice.

For someone raised on Windows, it just is.

And as others here have pointed out, there are many Linux distros that probably will support Iamthecheese's common tasks in GUIs.

How old were the distros you tried? I just googled and found someone who uses an AE-5 with Linux kernel 6.6.9 as of January 2024. No problems.

Or better still: Slim Whitman's Indian Love Call.

Forgive my rewording of your post: you appear to claim that non-quantum physics is essentially deterministic and therefore does not support the concept of free will, whereas quantum mechanics proposes an uncertainty in the universe that may be fundamental, and thus supports free will.

I'm a physicist, not a philosopher. This discussion mostly is in the philosopher's bailiwick. So, with that disclosure, let's move on.

Compatibilists are those who reconcile determinism with free will by claiming that a person has free will even if their mental state is the consequence of deterministic processes. This sounds as though they claim free will is an illusion, but our legal system demands that people take responsibility for their actions, so perhaps we're forced to accept this illusion.

However, non-deterministic quantum theory does not necessarily support free will. The strictest non-deterministic interpretation that I know of is the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that a system does not have definite physical properties until it is measured. The mind could make measurements of the external world and still be induced to follow certain patterns as a consequence of them. The initial uncertainty may again present the illusion of free will without it actually being present.

In the end, free will is something that may be impossible to prove is present, because that would require that you could make more than one distinct choice from exactly the same initial conditions, and you cannot conduct such an experiment, because any attempt to offer the same choice more than once could not hide the history of prior choices.

One. Last. Time.

You said that all religions are cults and all cults are religions.

I say that not all religions are cults and not all cults are religions.

And we'll have to leave it at that.