Ok, sigh yourself:

First, you're assuming that I either didn't know that "removal" as opposed to deportation, ordered by immigration officers instead of judges wasn't a thing, or that I was always ok with it when it happened under previous presidents. Neither is true. I'm the first to criticize Obama when he did something shitty (which started with why I almost didn't vote for him in 2008--as a senator, he voted to give AT&T immunity for giving the NSA metadata without a warrant. Had McCain not picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, he would have gotten my vote, but McCain had gone through several cancer scares by that point, and I was afraid of ending up with President Palin).

Second, even though the Obama adminstration (and Bush, it was also going on with the Bush administration) removed people without judge orders, they typically did it at the border. They, in my opinion, did so illegally in some cases (some of the people turned away from the border already had been granted asylum by a judge), but the for the most part, the potential for a mistake was minimal. Said previous administrations also removed people under the order of immigration officers if they were within 100 miles from our borders (because in another ridiculous US longstanding practice, anything within 100 miles of the border is considered to be on the border...so you can get searched without a warrant, for instance, as if you just landed at an airport if you're within 100 miles of a border). It is terrible, I never liked it, I criticized it back then.

So, what's changed with Trump administration that makes it that much worse? First, the removals within the 100 mile ring that happened before were all against people who were *convicted* of a crime by a court. So they got some form of due process, even if it's not satisfactory. The Trump administration has included people that were *suspected* of being gang members, without a conviction, often with the most ridiculous excuses. Take Abrego Garcia, who got into a database for being a potential gang member because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat at a Home Depot. And got subsequently accused of human trafficking because once he was driving a car with 9 people in it. And speaking of Abrego Garcia, no previous administration performed removals that sent said people to *prison* outside the country. The Trump administration also abandoned the 100 mile ring thing, and they can take people from anywhere.

Or take Mahmoud Khalil, who got his green card revoked and was arrested because he was taking place in a peaceful protest. He wasn't even *accused* of a crime, the administration is literally saying that his first amendment rights are dangerous because he's protesting against their position on Isreal, and that's the reason he should be deported.

Here's the thing: if you don't get to go before a court, how do I know you're here illegally? What's to stop them from sending you there, and never giving you a chance to show you're a US citizen? Because, guess what? Due Process is how you PROVE they're here illegally, or that you did anything wrong. And you can't deny the Trump administration escalated things from "this shouldn't be allowed by the courts" to "oh shit, this is 1933 Germany crap." Because...again, you argued that the removals were happening, but completely ignored my point that the removal was to OUT OF THE COUNTRY PRISONS WITH KNOWN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

I'm not saying government officials should be required to volunteer anything to reporters. Beyond what is required by freedom of information act. Information that has reason to be restricted can remain restricted, and although I prefer the government to be as transparent as possible, if the pentagon had said, "we're not dealing with the press anymore," I would find that disturbing, and a bad choice by the administration, but I wouldn't call it part of a fascist regime. What crosses the line is that they're saying, "after we give you the information, you have to let us see what you write, and give us veto power over what you publish." And selectively giving information only to outlets that sign that agreement.

Are you seriously going to argue that's not a propaganda office?

No, and I'm not sure where you got that from. I pointed it out because Fox and Newsmax are organizations that typically side with the current administration, but even they agree that's a step too far. It's not partisan, it's objectively worrisome.

As much as I don't like his completely unprofessional and disrespectful to the office attitude, I recognize his trolling. That's not what I was talking about. I'm referring to his claims of having the power to do whatever his wants as *justifications to actual actions he has taken*. For instance, tariffs. The law says only congress has the right to enact those. There's also a law that says he can enact those in an emergency. So he uses the justification of a fentanyl epidemic for tariffs that he *also clearly says are not due to address the fentanyl epidemic, but as part of negotiation tactics*.

He's being open about violating the law with flimsy excuses. Again, how are you justifying this?

Anyone, conservative or liberal, that isn't extremely worried about Trump's authoritarian regime's jailing people without due process in out of the country prisons, attack on free speech of any opinions he doesn't like (such as denying press reporting on the pentagon if it's not cleared by them first, something even Fox News and Newsmax refused to agree to), and overall vague claims to having the power to do whatever the hell he wants are the ones suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I've lived through multiple Republican Presidents, I've disagreed with both Republican and Democrat presidents, I've never been worried for our country before. This isn't political, and anyone who thinks it is needs to wake up from their cult of personality.

I'm not sure I understand how this is price fixing, though.

If two gas stations are next to each other, and can see each other's prices, and set their prices accordingly, that's not price fixing or collusion. You never need to go much below the other gas station, and if one of the gas stations in a more convenient spot next to, say, an interstate exit, they can afford to ask for a higher price. That's just regular competition, you want to maximize your margin, and you're never going to lower your price much beyond your competitors, just enough to get enough of their business to sell your inventory.

The price fixing happens when you set the price artificially high and the collusion happens when the competitors agree to not take advantage of that to take all of your customers. True, that's whether they had a meeting about it or not, they don't have to actually shake hands on it, but the price *does need to be artificially high*. And artificially high means you're sacrificing demand for the margin. So, in the case of the gas station, if you halved your customers, but you're making more money because of the high margin, you must be colluding. In the case of landlords, if they're not able to find tenants most of the time, but when they do, it makes up for it and they make more money, then it's artificially high and they must be colluding. But if they can find tenants, *by definition* it cannot be price fixing.

And yes, I get that shelter is an inelastic demand, but the article itself mentions the supply shortage of housing. The way to fix supply shortages in the free market is by increasing prices to reduce demand to match the supply. Since that's obviously not an option for housing, because everyone needs to live, the ONLY APPROACH is to build more housing, you can't address this problem with price controls.

I think what we do have evidence for is that you didn't read the paper, but I did, because it was interesting. From the paper:

Godel does no such thing. The incompleteness theorem says that some things can't be proven, and aren't computable, but every example of that *includes humans*. It's not a case that you can't build a computer and program in an axiomatic system that is consistent and can prove every statement with godel numbers, but that a human can prove a statement in that system that that computer can't prove. The human can't either. It's a statement about the limits of axiomatic mathematical systems.

There's no evidence anything in human thought falls under the realm of uncomputability. In fact, given that the brain is made up of neurons that are guaranteed to fire or not fire given specific conditions, electrical and chemical, there's plenty of evidence that it *must* be computable and algorithmic.

That is a terrible system, I'm surprised they do it that way. Banks are usually better about that. The only times I got a call from my bank that required me to prove who I was, it was either a returned call, and they mentioned the subject and that I had called, before they started verifying my identity, so I knew it was legit. Or the fraud alert people, and they could easily verify that they were who they said they were, because they asked about specific purchase attempts with the amount and location before they tried to verify my identity.

I did get one *actual* phishing call decades ago that made me absolutely crack up. The person on the other line said they were from "the bank." They didn't say which bank, just "the bank." Usually I immediately hang up on phishing, but that one made me want to engage a bit: I asked "which bank" and he answered, "your bank." At that point I just burst out laughing and the gig was up, so I hung up.

I had an instance of a work e-mail years ago, that was sent from a third-party contractor, that had so many red flags for very obvious phishing (including coming from outside the organization, wtf).

Where I work, we have a place to forward phishing emails so that IT can review it. I forwarded it there, and apparently so many other people did that a follow-up email had to be sent out that said, "we thank everyone for pointing out this e-mail as phishing, but we can confirm it's actually legit."

I think they learned the lesson from that, because it has not happened since that we got such a terrible email. I think my point is that overtraining may not work, but having a place to report phishing is a great idea. It only takes one person to report it, and then the IT department sends out a massive e-mail to warn everyone else about it, so it doesn't rely on them recognizing it (and anyone that already fell victim to it can report that they have, so action can be taken to minimize the damage). And in cases like you and I experienced, they can also do the opposite and confirm that it's real.

I agree, but go the other route for the comparison to humans and thought: people need to stop thinking that what we do when we "think" isn't algorithmic. Of course it is. We're not that special.

The models are trained on the same data, and they create their output based on the connections they made with all the previous data. When we ask it to generate "random" numbers, they're not any more random than when a human is asked to generate a random list of numbers. It's not purposefully encoding the information in the numbers because transmitting its love for owls is important to it, but the favorite animal information tokens are part of the seed made when it's generating those numbers.

Invariably, the second LLM that has been trained on the same data as the first will have the same data connections to those numbers. It's similar to how, when I was dating, I was filtering out anyone that added the information in the app that they had not been vaccinated for COVID. There's a *lot* of information associated with the type of person who was not only not vaccinated, but felt that they needed to state it. The information isn't contained in that assertion alone, but combined with the information already in my brain, it tells me a lot about their belief structure in things completely unrelated to vaccines and COVID. The LLM is doing that.

The fact that ChatGPT gives bad answers is a plus when using it to debug your knowledge. I often bring it down from GPT 4 to GPT 3 when Iâ(TM)m using it to help with my reasoning, because when it gives me something that doesnâ(TM)t sound right, if I can then reason out why it doesnâ(TM)t sound right, it means Iâ(TM)ve reached the understanding Iâ(TM)m looking for. Itâ(TM)s not about using it as a source. Itâ(TM)s a better version of explaining something to a rubber duck to force yourself to reason it through. Better because it gives you feedback. As long as youâ(TM)re engaged, incorrect feedback is just as useful as correct one.

Because people with high clearance sometimes want attention too, and that shouldn't be surprising. We have a lot of people with high clearance, you really expect 0 of them to be crackpots?

Of course there is. Denying funding for a program that doesn't exist changes nothing, so there are no actual consequences to the provision, so you do no damage by voting yes. On the other hand, voting no will get you accused of being part of the conspiracy hiding aliens, which is a political can of worms.

We're absolutely dealing with a cabal of conspiracy theorists, but our elected officials are too cowardly to go against them. It's the safer path to just make a show of it, it even gets you some media attention which is great name-recognition for re-election time.

I've been on reddit for two long, I apologize for the giant formatting mess above. Here's the properly formatted version:

In addition to that, it's important to keep in mind that they want to be the ones to decide what the regulations are: "Murati said the company is constantly talking with governments and regulators and other organizations to agree on some level of standards."

They don't really want to be regulated, they want the ability to tell the government what the regulation should be. If the government were to regulate in a way that says, for instance, "all AI research must be open, and you must publish the methods and source" I'm pretty sure they'd be suddenly very anti-regulation considering their newer stances.

>Because they're the first on the market and benefitted from zero regulation to get where they are, and any regulation enacted now will put barriers on the growth of future competitors. In addition to that, it's important to keep in mind that they want to be the ones to decide what the regulations are: "Murati said the company is constantly talking with governments and regulators and other organizations to agree on some level of standards." They don't really want to be regulated, they want the ability to tell the government what the regulation should be. If the government were to regulate in a way that says, for instance, "all AI research must be open, and you must publish the methods and source" I'm pretty sure they'd be suddenly very anti-regulation considering their newer stances.

I agree with you in principle, but don't you find it problematic if we say that any one individual can decide which part of the classified information should not be classified because it violates the laws of the land according to their interpretation? Everyone has different interpretations, the system in place is precisely set up to make that determination.

And yes, the system can fail us, and as far as US government spying on American citizens, I think it has. However, I think that if you decide you know better than the system, you have to be brave enough to face the consequences, and face that 10+ year in federal lockup as part of your civil disobedience. If it's not worth that, it's not worth sharing.

That's a fair point. I made an implicit assumption that it's an entry-level position for someone just graduating. In which case, they don't have that much professional experience, so you ask about stuff like that.

There's time spent on both sides, and as someone who has had to interview potential hires, I'm also thinking of the time on that end. It's not just important to fill the position, it's important to not fill the position with dead weight, and I find that time spent in the interview saves a lot of time you'd waste later if you hired the wrong person.

Yeah, they are. And it doesn't help that most applicants don't have it. Anything you can do to filter them out as quickly as possible is helping, not hurting. That includes filtering out people who think they're too good to answer a few questions.

In the time it takes me to write up a 40-page response to all these questions, I could apply for jobs at 20 other companies.

It's not a 40-page response, and if you replied to that questionnaire in 40 pages, that would probably immediately filter you out. Most of those questions are a couple of sentences, some of them are a paragraph. Furthermore, why would you apply to 20 companies? Like you said, it's a seller's market. You pick two or three companies you want to work at because what they do is interesting to you, and you apply to them. That's plenty enough to get them to fight each other when negotiating for pay.