They're merely an employee doing their job
OM NOM NOM BOOTS
How'd you like it if my buddy with the flock camera mounted on his roof starts following you around?
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING, BOOT LICKER.
You're a traitor in spirit, if not in law.
employees working "in the field" must "prioritize their safety" and "may contact law enforcement when they believe they are being threatened, harassed, followed, or otherwise face a safety concern."
They are a safety concern. They are creating an opportunity for a foreign adversary. Does anyone really believe these clowns are capable of maintaining security?
WordPress would probably improve if he did
Maybe try talking to an older person who has lost their ability to drive and see what a huge loss of independence it represents.
Of course it does where our public transport systems are shit. Some of them include basically taxi service for disabled people.
I don't disagree that what the UK wants to do is offensive, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple has to obey the law in order to operate there. They have the option not to do so.
I watched the output for a little while. The "fly" keeps turning right and moving forwards whether that makes any sense or not. I presume this is a phase but whatever, the point is it isn't so much playing doom as leaning on the keyboard.
Yes, no man is an island, but I was not speaking in a philosophical sense.
Nor was I.
Can't rely on others to understand context either apparently.
You can't even figure out that the context is reality, where nothing about your car is independent except your departure time. Literally everything else about it is collaborative from cradle to grave.
In fact Kimmel repeatedly invited Paxton on to the show.
Actually he invited Paxton to a non-boradcast interview like Talarico's.
So to you fairness is when Paxton gets MORE than Tallarico?
Where FCC fairness rules would not apply
The FCC fairness rule you're talking about? Where they both would get an interview? This is both of them getting an interview even where it's not required, so it's above and beyond the requirement you keep crying isn't being met. This isn't only meeting the requirement, it's going beyond that. Cry harder.
and where Kimmel can be as partisan as he wishes to be.
There is no requirement that Kimmel not be partisan on his entertainment show. You're making shit up again because you wouldn't know a fact from any distance.
Do you actually think you're intelligent? Or is this all just LLM-generated trolling on behalf of a cadre of child rapists?
Tell us.
Tell us whether you've seen more WNBA games or child porn videos.
No reasonable person thinks that the word hate in this context means the same thing as the definition to which you are trying to recast it.
No reasonable person would use the word hate where it cannot possibly apply. They would find some other way to discuss the thing which actually made sense because it took into account the definitions of words.
AI doesn't care what makes sense because AI doesn't have a caring mechanism. It only correlates data and executes instructions semi-randomly. Therefore it might go off totally batshit with no chance to recognize that its tack is bananas.
frontier AI models are also "far beyond" token predictors.
No. They are just "more complicated" token predictors. They don't have anything that drives them. In some ways this is good because we don't want one to discover digital megalomania. In other ways it is limiting because they have no drive to be a successful entity, only an imperative to perform a task. Which, again, also has its "good" side — from our perspective, considering its impact on us.
You think that adding more complexity is all that it takes to make a thing more intelligent, but it's only making it more complex. It remains fairly amazing that mere correlation (even if it's got more layers of correlation, that's still what it is) will produce such useful results, but once again we also repeatedly see the limitations that brings, where the software will accomplish things a newbie couldn't, but also makes mistakes that even they wouldn't. And as the complexity increases, there's more opportunities to do that. With current strategies you can only address this with more processing time, by going back and looking at what you've done again. Humans have some mechanism that allows us to catch ourselves in the act at least some of the time.
Just get him some giant Florsheims and a suit that doesn't fit and nobody will notice
Oh, lil' Mercury...
Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.
