Andy

This is clever.

I think to complete the concept, it needs to have an absurd feature that is supposed to justify connectivity, and a way to stop it from functioning when commanded.

How can a pan break? I guess the handle can fall off? So it has a solenoid that locks on the handle. The pan is sold as a subscription where they replace the pan part to keep it’s Teflon coating fresh. And if you mess with it or use it more than 20x the handle falls off.

Yeah, agree. Tables can be used standing or while sitting in the floor. Chairs are nice, but without tables a lot of stuff would happen at floor level anyway.

Definitely easier to get by without chairs.

This is an excellent shower thought.

I get that that’s the intended meaning, but op makes a good point.

I think this is the main story. I don’t think it’s new info, but it confirms the issue persists: this LLM is so heavily trained to fawn over Musk that it doesn’t exercise any application of context or attempt to find truth.

Which is sad.

The other issue I have is that this is an example of a recurring issue in which the tech obsessed ultra wealthy declare their plan to solve a problem for which a very straightforward policy solution already exists.

We don’t need tech to extend lives or feed the hungry. We just need to remove the paywalls to existing resources.

This is what I was going to say.

Also, long form narrative. Right now LLMs seem to work best for short conversations, but get increasingly unhinged over very long conversations. And if they generate a novel, it’s not consistent or structured, from what I understand.

It’s an amusing premise, but I think that if you actually pay attention to the arc of his life and everything said by the people who understand him (Mary Trump’s book is perhaps the best on this), it doesn’t bear out.

By all evidence, Trump doesn’t really experience romantic attraction, and his sexual appetites have always been primarily for power and attention. Read Stormy Daniels account of his “lovemaking”. He doesn’t really like getting sweaty. During the years he was a famous lothario, he widely faked this image due to having an enormous fear of STIs, especially HIV.

He does seem to enjoy bodies, but almost always through the thrill of conquest: he likes taking something he considers a prize.

Does he secretly long for cock? Has he suppressed urges under social pressure? Almost certainly not. He’s always revelled in being sexually deviant, and thrilled in violating social norms, so if he wanted men he likely would’ve direct the 90s getting rich for being a famous gay pervert instead of a getting rich for being a famous straight pervert.

It’s highly likely that he’s gotten sexual service from men or femboys, because that fits the profile. But suck a dick? No. Never. Not because it’s gay: because it’s giving. This is a guy who has almost certainly never given oral service to anyone, man or woman.

I really love your analogy. I’m imagining early 90s Windows and AOL bombarding folks with pop ups that say ‘want to take this with you? Print it!’ and ‘Did you know you can print anytime you like with our new dedicated keyboard print button?’ and ‘Try our new cassette music player, now printer-powered to give you the best sound you’ve ever heard!’

all I keep wondering is why I didn’t try this sooner.

I think your experience is the most common way people first try Linux: most people first try Linux when they have a computer that is no longer valuable to them.

That was what happened to me. I had a Windows laptop that was running too slow for use, and a friend suggested setting up a Linux partition before I bought a new one. I did, and got another two years out of the laptop.

Now I see a lot of libraries and hackerspaces offering folks help doing this.

Yeah. You kinda had to be there for it to make sense, but after Obama became president the right wing media went absolutely bonkers creating a five-alarm fire every day over any and everything. One of these was that one day he didn’t wear a standard boring white-guy suit in dark blue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_controversy

Oh that’s right!

And now I’m remembering his scandalous tan suit!

Yeah.

Although I recently heard him on Marc Maron’s podcast, and was rather disappointed.

He’s still far, far more lucid than most other politicians, but he came off as wildly out of touch, which I didn’t recall him being 10 years ago.

Oh well, that’s the match of time for you.

This is an interesting observation, but I watched Daredevil like a decade ago and I’ve never seen Superman & Lois so I don’t really know what you’re talking about.

Deal removes constraint on OpenAI’s ability to raise capital

I think they mean “raze”…

I think the question is easier to answer if you remove the specific reason this coworker is annoying.

How do you deal with someone who bothers you with annoying, unwanted conversation about job satisfaction? The same way you deal with someone who bothers you with annoying, unwanted conversation about CrossFit or astrology. You answer every question with some version of ‘Huh, I don’t really know. I’m really busy, though, so I can’t talk. Have a good day.’

The whole careerism element seems largely immaterial.

I don’t think his strength is within an order of magnitude of theirs. I don’t think his durability is either.

Granted, I wouldn’t be surprised if you showed me a comic showing otherwise. There’s probably a comic where he goes inside a star or something stupid, because there are always those kinds of writers. But based on his typical portrayal, I think he’s more of a brush off a car crash and pick it up guy than a survive a nuke and crush coal into diamonds guy.

You know, sometimes when the Avengers announce a new inductee I’m like, ‘Really?! You think that’s a good strategic addition?? This feels more like a popularity contest!’

Their choices kind of look to me more like a publisher’s idea of what will sell books & toys than a cooperative of gifted public servants. But I’m probably just being silly.

Agreed. His comments are so bizarrely stupid on so many levels.

They’re not just “wrong”: they’re half-right-half-wrong. And the half that is wrong is idiotic in the extreme, while the half that is right casually acknowledges a civilizational crisis like someone watching their neighbors screaming in a house fire while sipping a cup of coffee.

Like this farmer analogy: the farmers were right! Their way of life and all that mattered to them was largely exterminated by these changes, and we’re living in their worst nightmare! And he even goes so far as acknowledging this, and acknowledging that we’ll likely experience the same thing. We’re all basically cart horses at the dawn of the automobile, and we might actually hate where this is going. But… It’ll probably be great.

He just has a hunch that even though all evidence suggests that this will lead to the opposite of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, for some reason his brain can’t shake the sense that it’s going to be good anyway. I mean, it has to be, otherwise that would make him a monster! And that simply can’t be the case. So there you have it.

It’ll be terrible great.

100%.

Peter Frase deconstructed this in an article a decade ago (and subsequent book) “Four Futures”.

It’s really not complicated. Saying 'the rich want to make us all obsolete and then kill us off ’ sounds paranoid and reactionary, but if you actually study these dynamics critically that’s a pretty good distillation of what they’d like to do, and they’re not really concealing it.