You can get old business laptops for a few bucks on lots of places, like online retailers, refurbished sites or eBay. They are quite solid, can be upgraded for cheap, and will last for a long time. That's where I got the T14 from - for less than $250, and that's what I use for my 3D printing, for my web browsing and for the occasional game. And you don't find that many business laptops with AMD processors. I don't buy a computer for its CPU. If it works, it's fine for me.

Because not everyone playing on Steam has a big, powerful gaming rig. I myself am on Steam, but the computer I use to play the occasional game is an old Lenovo T14 laptop - with an Intel CPU. People like me playing on their laptops really tilt the balance towards Intel.

You wanted me to answer how you can build a value system without a deity telling you what to do. Job done.

The question how to find meaning in life is a different question. But I already gave an answer with me hinting at Existentialism. (I personally don't believe in an universal meaning of life. I happen to exist, and so I have to do with what I got, and that's just me. This is pretty close to, but not the same as Existentialism.)

No. All I need is me. Do I want to be killed? Do I want to be molested? Do I want do be robbed? Do I want to be lied to?

As I don't want those things happen to me, I don't do them to others, because I only can expect others not to do them to me, if they can be assured I don't do it to them. I don't need pre-existing values. I just have to accept everyone else to be like me.

(This is just the simple version. The more elaborate version of the rule is Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." We could also go into Existentialism and postulate that personal freedom, individual responsibility, and deliberate choice are essential to the pursuit of self-discovery and the determination of life's meaning.)

The Golden Rule is quite sufficient as an universal value. Another one is the universal dignity of everybody. Both answer your questions sufficiently.

You don't kill the poor and the sick, because you don't want to be killed if you get poor and sick. You tell the truth because you don't want to be lied to. You want to give people making bad decisions a chance of redemption, because you want the chance of redemption if you fail. No God needed.

I subscribe to H.L.Mencken's attitude though:

"Because I don't like the result, I redefine 'No Religion' to an arbitrary meaning and come to a result of 95% Christian."

Exactly. That's why the separation of State and Church is important. And it had to be forced upon Christianity which was used to 1500 years of being a state religion.

Religious tolerance was forced upon Christianity by the horrors of the 30years War, when Christians murdered Christians for being the wrong kind of Christian, and when the Puritans did the same in Great Britain with everyone who only slightly diverted from their idea of Christianity.

That's why in the U.S. constitution, it is clearly stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]", because of the horrors of Christian intolerance. That's why one of the central ideas of the Enlightenment was the Freedom of Religion, the freedom to chose whatever you want to believe in. Grudgingly, Christian communities agreed, but needed another 150 years to do so.

Religious tolerance is not a feature of modern Christianity. It only exists because of exterior forces.

So, like Dungeons and Dragons and Judas Priest before them, AI models are now blamed for underlying mental health issues that they have nothing to do with.

Bring on the AI moral panic. As if we didn't have enough of those these days.

As if 1974 never happened, right?

Whatâ(TM)s interesting here is that as a professional musician, this guy is a public figure and the âoeactual maliceâ standard for defamation applies â" a standard that was designed when defamation could only be done by a human being.

This requires the defendant to make a defamatory statement either (1) knowing it is untrue or (2) with reckless disregard for the truth.

Neither condition applies to the LLM itself; it has no conception of truth, only linguistic probability. But the LLM isnâ(TM)t the defendant here. Itâ(TM)s the company offering it as a service. Here the company is not even aware of the defamatory statement being made. But it is fully aware of their modelâ(TM)s capacity to hallucinate defamatory âoefactsâ.

I think that because the tort is based in the common law concept of a duty of care, we may well see the company held liable in some way for this kind of thing. But itâ(TM)s new law; it could go the other way.

I've driven some SUVs and trucks, and their comfort is miserable, they are a beast to get parked, they are not exactly cornering well, and don't get me started on the car body moving! No wonder U.S. roads have to be so wide and so straight, because otherwise, trucks would so unwieldy only people urgently need their specific properties would drive them.

Not exactly. If you put traffic on EVs, you don't need to subsidize fossil fuels, because there would be enough for all the other uses.

Can't wait for the groovy A flat, Asus4-G sharp-sus5, F sharp add11 song, with the C minor dim7 root for the bridge.

The French have an interesting record with tyranny, including lopping off the head of a tyrant, and then lopping off the head of one of the tyrants that was instrumental in the first tyrant's head getting lopped off. The French Revolution makes that puny American War of Independence seem like a stroll in the park.

And perhaps we can also mention how there wouldn't even be a United States if France hadn't given the Continental Congress significant financial and military (particularly naval) aid.