I'm not going to respect a comment like this from someone who puts a space on either side of an em dash. Now tell me your take on the Oxford comma.
Ideally, it should be a hair space (because em dashes in web fonts are borderline illegible without it), but Slashdot does not support Unicode, and   gets silently swallowed by Slashdot's HTML parser. Besides, we all know that AP style is the one true style, and it demands space.
No, an en dash is used for numerical ranges and certain compound hyphentions, not for parentheticals.
Humans do not want to use them.
Apparently I'm not human? I like hyphens, en dashes and em dashes. I understand what all of them mean and how to use them correctly, and I find it helpful when text that I'm reading uses the right one.
From the summary:
If the world's most valuable AI company has struggled with controlling something as simple as punctuation use after years of trying, perhaps what people call artificial general intelligence (AGI) is farther off than some in the industry claim.
That's not the right conclusion. It doesn't say much one way or the other about AGI. Plausibly, ChatGPT just likes correctly using em dashes — I certainly do — and chose to ignore the instruction. What this does demonstrate is what the X user wrote (also from the summary):
[this] says a lot about how little control you have over it, and your understanding of its inner workings
Many people are blithely confident that if we manage to create superintelligent AGI it'll be easy to make sure that it will do our bidding. Not true, not the way we're building it now anyway. Of course many other people blithely assume that we will never be able to create superintelligent AGI, or at least that we won't be able to do it in their lifetime. Those people are engaging in equally-foolish wishful thinking, just in a different direction.
The fact is that we have no idea how far we are from creating AGI, and won't until we either do it or construct a fully-developed theory of what exactly intelligence is and how it works. And the same lack of knowledge means that we will have no idea how to control AGI if we manage to create it. And if anyone feels like arguing that we'll never succeed at building AGI until we have the aforementioned fully-developed theory, please consider that random variation and selection managed to produce intelligence in nature, without any explanatory theory.
My parents still do though my dad keeps questioning if he wants it any longer. They don't watch much any more and the cost is out of hand.
What they do is spend two hours or so every night watching YT videos of places around the world or watching shows about this or that subject.
And that is the key demographic that would likely have cable. So when they stop, and enough others stop, Cable is in even more trouble than their almost 50 percent drop.
SO and I still have cable, but it's the same thing. She watched Youtube videos, I watch Youtube videos. She keeps things like court shows on for background sound in the house. I watch science channel late at night. But really, the offerings on cable and network TV kind of stink. How many shows can we have of some hot babe banging 10 different guys, than picking one to marry, or real housewives who aren't, or sassy African women fighting with each other? So they're spiraling, and catering to a strange demographic.
I'll go with NHTSA and NASA over the "Barr Group" ambulance chasers, thank you. Barr found that it's possible if you get like a cosmic ray to flip just the right bit you could stick the throttle on (but still not make it overpower the brakes). NHTSA and NASA investigated not just the software but the actual cases. In not a single actual case that they investigated did they find that it wasn't well explained by either stuck pedals or pedal misapplication (mainly the latter).
I've got all the money I'll ever need if I die by 4 o'clock. -- Henny Youngman