Before doing that, I would very carefully describe the problem I want to solve and other possible solutions. There are (relatively uncommon) situations where LLMs make sense, but many people are buying the snake oil when they don’t need it. Wouldn’t want to be played a fool.
What exactly are you talking about? Men who feel lonely sometimes? Men without friends? Men who are not having sex?
The best? No, it does not have that reputation. Everyone knows it’s mostly full of shit, with some good channels here and there. The biggest? Maybe, depending what you are talking about.
That’s a good start, but where do you draw the line? If I use a template, is that AI? What if I am writing a letter based on that template and use a grammar checker to fix the grammar. Is that AI? And then I use the thesaurus to automatically beef up the vocabulary. Is that AI?
In other words, you can’t say LLM and think it’s a clear proposition. LLMs have been around and used for various things for quite a while, and some of those things don’t feel unnatural.
So I’m afraid we still have a definitional problem. And I don’t think it is easy to solve. There are so many interesting edge cases.
Let’s consider an old one. Weather forecasting. Of course the forecasts are in a sense AI models. Or models, if you don’t want to say AI. Doesn’t matter. And then that information can be displayed in a table, automatically, on a website. That’s a script, not really AI, but hey, you could argue the whole system now counts as AI. So then let’s use an LLM to put it in paragraph form, the table is boring. I think Weather.com just did this recently and labeled it “AI forecast”, in fact. But is this really an LLM being used in a new way? Is this actually harmful when it’s essentially the same general process that we’ve had for decades? Of course it’s benign. But it is LLM, technically…
Define the terms please. AI has existed for decades. What are you focusing on now?
Ignoring him is not working for you, or you wouldn’t be here. Either respond actively or distance yourself. If he’s a narcissist, the former might work. If he’s looking for a fight, the latter might work.
And he was your dad. If he doesn’t act like a dad, though, he’ll become “the jackass who fathered me”. Which is sad.
Certainly many people do, though. It depends on the individual.
Accidentally, lol. The point was to mine and sell the data, wasn’t it? Not exactly private.
Please read it all again. They didn’t rely on the conversion. It’s just a convenient way to create a counterexample.
Anyway, here’s a simple equivalent. Let’s consider a number like pi except that wherever pi has a 9, this new number has a 1. This new number is infinite and doesn’t repeat. So it also answers the original question.
Metadata is in the mp3 itself tho…
It is easy to have a nuanced position and still come to the obvious conclusion on what’s happening now. The past is completely enough that a basic history lesson would suffice.
You mean like text messages? If you have texts and then video cameras of two people going into a hotel room, that’s mighty fine evidence. What the hell else were they gonna do? Yoga?
You don’t need eyewitnesses to get convictions. That is not the legal standard.
Not worded like that. A lot of billionaires, probably all of them, are evil narcissistic fuckheads. The narcissism does the heavy lifting. They can’t imagine themselves being poor, and they certainly can’t imagine themselves being the kind of poor person that they despise.