You could just wait

OP clearly expects LLMs to exhibit mind-like behaviors. Lying absolutely implies agency, but even if you don’t agree, OP is confused that

It did not simply analyze the best type of graphics card for the situation

The whole point of the post is that OP is upset that LLMs are generating falsehoods and parroting input back into its output. No one with a basic understanding of LLMs would be surprised by this. If someone said their phone’s autocorrect was “lying”, you’d be correct in assuming they didn’t understand the basics of what autocorrect is, and would be completely justified in pointing out that that’s nonsense.

I know, but it’s a ridiculous term. It’s so bad it must have been invented or chosen to mislead and make people think it has a mind, which seems to have been successful, as evidenced by the OP

ChatGPT does not “hallucinate” or “lie”. It does not perceive, so it can’t hallucinate. It has no intent, so it can’t lie. It generates text without any regard to whether said text is true or false.

I mean, you made up a whole continent. Why stop there?

This message is in a very confusing format, evidenced by other people in this thread misunderstanding it. It also took me a while to figure it out. I’ll take a whack at rewriting it.

It is policy of lemmy.world to send a message to its users when their posts are removed from a community by a moderator of that community. This message is notifying you of such an action. The following is the reason given by the moderator of the community.

Your post in No Stupid Questions was removed for the following reason:

• Rule 1

They didn’t quote it. That bit was added by the lemmy.world moderators.

Everything the Nazis did in the Third Reich was legal. People who resisted them were breaking the law. Maybe we should evaluate things by their impact (pollution/invasion of privacy) rather than their legality.

Technically true, since you could also just replace them with nothing

Executives believe nearly half of the skills that exist in today’s workforce won’t be relevant just two years from now, thanks to artificial intelligence.

1. Executives are such dumbasses

2. That is literally all this “study” did. Ask people how many of their skills they think will be obsoleted. This headline is ridiculous.

Want to exchange information in json? plaintext? binary data? Sockets can do it.

This is exactly why you need something like dbus. If you just have a socket, you know nothing about how the data is structured, what the communication protocol is, etc. dbus defines all this.

very old

Obviously it’s subjective but Debian doesn’t use ancient software. For instance Bookworm has Python 3.11; the current Python is 3.12. Some software updates slowly enough that you end up with the latest version. I seem to recall zsh being up to date. But yeah, make sure you’re using the correct version when looking up docs.

I’d be surprised to find out there was one filesystem that consistently did better than others in gaming performance. ext4 is a fine choice, though.

So, to recap:

Someone pointed out that Republicans did January 6th, a violent attempt to seize control of the government by overturning the results of the election. You then gave examples of Democrats supposedly doing the same thing. I pointed out that none of the examples you gave were anything like January 6th. You then gave reasons why January 6th wasn’t bad. I pointed out that none of those reasons changed the fact that it was a violent attempt by Republicans to seize control of the government by overturning the results of the election. You still have not provided an example of the Democrats doing the same thing.

Now you say, well, people from both parties do violence sometimes, so let’s call it a draw. I appreciate the wisdom of making a strategic retreat, but no. You made bad arguments. Now you have to admit you are wrong one of two ways. You could just be explicit, come out and say it. More likely you’ll do it implicitly, by changing the subject or not responding at all.

I’m not really keen to get into an argument about which party is responsible for more violence

I get it. I don’t like getting into losing arguments either.

Yes, Trump and the GOP party leadership spent months plotting to overthrow a legitimate election, but when it came time to do so, one line in a speech sounded nice. Then the protest started getting violent and destructive. To be clear, they were doing this for him (in the sense that they wanted him to continue to be president). He could have shown up and told them to stop and they would have. But he didn’t. He made no meaningful attempt to stop it at all. He did, however, say something nice earlier in the day. That’s true.

Yes, I said murdered when I should have said manslaughtered. Sorry. The protest was still violent. I’ve seen the footage; they managed to make me feel sorry for a cop.

I did never make a claim as to the level of damage. I’ve never really thought about the dollar amount; it’s more about the fact that they broke in. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn’t be worried about the dollar amount of the damage. I’d be worried about what that means about their intent.

You are being obtuse. None of the differences you’ve pointed out are salient. None of the similarities you have implied are. The post you replied to never said “Democrats would never…”, nor did I. And I disagree that Democrats actually did. The examples you gave are nothing like January 6th, except in facile similarities like the location of the events. I will say though, I agree that you aren’t enlightened or morally superior.

All of those things did happen, but they are worlds apart from Jan 6.

Your first link is clearly a peaceful demonstration; they didn’t even damage any property as far as I can tell. The article calls it “civil disobedience,” and apparently the vast majority were arrested for “demonstrating in the Capitol”. I shouldn’t have to remind you that the Jan 6 insurrectionists destroyed property and murdered people with the express intent of taking over government.

Your second link is again a peaceful demonstration. People were again arrested for “unlawfully demonstrating”. There is no mention of any destruction of property or injury. And again, they were not trying to seize the government.

Your third link is closest. There was obviously destruction of property and while no one got hurt, someone absolutely might have[1]. But even then, this was not an insurrection by and for the Democrats; it was from a fringe left group. Democrats immediately and to this day condemn the attack. Jan 6 was orchestrated by the leadership of the Republican party, and still receives support from said leadership.

Anyway, this is you:

[1]: The bombers did make an effort to not hurt people: they gave 30 minutes notice, and the explosion happened in the early hours of the morning. But something could still have gone wrong.

Hello. I am the neighborhood tailor, as I am sure you recognize.

_{Yes, it’s a different franchise, but it’s what it made me think of.}

Oh I thought they were done with 11

I may not be a computer scientist in real life, but I directed a movie based on a short story written by someone else who isn’t a computer scientist in real life.

Since when is truth up to popular opinion?