The internet is not the web, as you should know if you are still here in 2025. Videos with and without audio as well as music are all on the net. AI, including LLMs with the right interfaces, can watch humans, listen to humans, and perceive music just as well as we can. Stop and think before you post next time.

How does the odometer know that all those miles were acquired solely on UK roads? What if I load my car onto the train and drive around France, or load it onto a ferry and drive it around the Republic of Ireland?

Bullshit. Einstein didn't observe that nothing can move faster than light; he concluded this based on his thought experiment and then formulated his theory.

You mean it spouts a bunch of words it strings together, never saying anything intelligent, and having no idea what an intelligent person will make of it? It seems AI is more like you than you realize.

It's pretty evident that you have never had a discussion with Carl.

Your argument then is that people cannot think, since people are biological machines. Of course, you can argue that that statement is true or not depending on your definition of machine, but of course this is the same problem as trying to say something can or cannot think without having a scientifically testable definition of that word. In short, you either get that I don't need to prove you think and you can't prove any significantly complex neural network based system doesn't, or you aren't any better at thinking than an LLM that is at least as useful as you might be in any given scenario.

I see what you did there. We know that we say people can think, but most would see that you clearly don't. That was clever.

Where, prey tell, do you think humans get the vast majority of their "knowledge" in 2025? The question of if the internet is the right place to find information is completely separate from the question of if an LLM or any random human is capable of independent thought and critical analysis. News flash: neither the LLM nor the typical human under 30 years of age is capable of thinking, and experience shows that at least the LLM I have used is far better at holding an intelligent conversation than the typical "modern" human.

What's hard to understand is how I, an average concert goer, benefit from ticket price inflation.

If you're going to tell me that this is a good thing, then you need to explain how I benefit from it.

So people don't like scalpers because they inflate the price of tickets. So the solution you propose is to inflate the price of tickets.

I fail to see how the average concert goers benefits from this

I was asking why banning ticket scalping is a bad thing.

Can you explain how this is a bad thing?

Yes but the free market naturally trends towards consolidation, and thus plutocracy.

The Meta AI(s) that regular people will use are being thwarted by this dipshit. The next time you think you have something clever to say, just trust me, you don't.

He is clearly able to just block the queries. Intentionally making systems that humans who have no connection to Meta will use isn't pissing in Meta's cereal bowl ... which I am for 100%; it pisses in everyone's bowl.