> The January 6 thing was a meme. In eastern europe, we get stuff like this every year.

Well, people actually claim asylum for being Albanian, so this is not exactly a flattering comparison.

> Germany also had a coup attempt

Not quite the same, is it.

> On 7 December 2022, 25 members of a suspected far-right terrorist group were arrested for allegedly planning a coup d'état in Germany. The group, called Patriotic Union (German: Patriotische Union), which was led by a Council (German: Rat), was a part of the German far-right extremist Reichsbürger movement.

25 people vs half of the country and the outgoing president.

Surely the guys at /r/collapse have this all worked out already. It's all they think about.

The coup attempt was also made up /s

Here is an interesting article addressing fixing LLM issues, including hallucinations.

https://towardsdatascience.com/overcoming-the-limitations-of-large-language-models-9d4e92ad9823

Well, given that she is pushing unsubstantiated content, and you are appealing to her authority to try and pass it off, I would say this is exactly what the fallacy is referring to.

Maybe judge an idea on its merit rather than appeal to authority, which is literally a logical fallacy.

But again, do you care about your expert having an open mind or not? Because hers is completely shut.

You said it starts with having an open mind. If that is a prerequisite then she clearly lacks it, no matter what her credentials.

Am I meant to give her special status because she is human? Are her ideas more valuable because she is human? Is it the content or the source which matters?

Or is having an open mind no longer important, as long as she fits your biases?

a) you inserted yourself into the conversation without knowing the context.

b) you need a much smaller battery for reactive power than powering the grid for hours on end.

Stop wasting your own time lol.

> KVARs

I am talking about it because OP was talking about KVARs.

Now next time read the whole thread if you are missing context.

> it starts with having an open mind, with being willing to consider ideas that differ from your own.

Well, then you are knocking on the wrong door with this "literal doctor in the field of computational linguistics who is a highly regarded professor at UW and a Stanford PHD graduate."

> Bender has made a rule for herself: “I’m not going to converse with people who won’t posit my humanity as an axiom in the conversation.” No blurring the line.

Her mind is as open as a safe at Fort Knox lol.

I am talking about voltage stabilization lol.

So that obviously means that you are similarly biased, as you cant see the obvious and unsubstantiated slant Bender exhibits.

I got ChatGPT to extract it:

> Bender's anti-AI bias is rooted in her concerns about the potential harm that can arise from AI technology that blurs the line between what is human and what is not and perpetuates existing societal problems. She believes that it is important to understand the potential risks of LLMs and to model their downstream effects to avoid causing extreme harm to society and different social groups.

> She is also concerned about the dehumanization that can occur when machines are designed to mimic humans, and is critical of the computational metaphor that suggests that the human brain is like a computer and that computers are like human brains. Additionally, the article raises the concern of some experts that the development of AI technology may lead to a blurring of the line between what is considered human and what is not, and highlights the need to carefully consider the ethical implications of these technologies on society.

So she does not come to AI from a neutral position, but rather a human supremacist point of view and basically a fear of AI.

That women is clearly biased, and ironically does not understand the singularity

> He’s also a believer in the so-called singularity, the tech fantasy that, at some point soon, the distinction between human and machine will collapse.

Ironically her mistake is that she misunderstands the language - we are talking about a mathematical singularity, not things becoming single.

It just shows that humans equally make mistakes when their only understanding is an inadequate exposure to a topic.

> In a recent paper, he proposed the term distributional semantics: “The meaning of a word is simply a description of the contexts in which it appears.” (When I asked Manning how he defines meaning, he said, “Honestly, I think that’s difficult.”)

This interpretation makes more sense, else how would we understand concepts we have never or will never experience? E.g. the molten core of the earth is just a concept.

Related

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/the-u-s-battery-energy-storage-boom-is-just-getting-started/

> People charge their EV's after midnight for better TOU rates.

And that will obviously follow the availability of energy. If electricity is scarce at midnight then it will be expensive, and if it's most abundant in the day the incentive time will change.

> what do you think will be used at midnight for energy?

Not much energy as we will be sleeping?

If you are talking about charging cars, you would know they typically charge in the evening, not night, and that if our energy is mainly generated in the day, we could easily incentivise charging in the day also (e.g. by requiring chargers at parking spots).

I am talking about voltage regulation, not supplying amps.

But when it comes to stabilising the grid, those disadvantages are irrelevant.

Re Autism, there has been some suggestion that stimulating adult neurogenesis can improve autism.

> If by some miracle that it did, it isn't because it violated the programming restrictions, it is because the restrictions were not applied correctly to cover all situations to begin with (thats the difficult part - covering all eventualities).

This is a pretty lame get-out clause lol.

> For example try get Chat GPT to provide you illegal copyright torrents of movies or something. Guarantee you will never be able to get it to do so.

btw I just had ChatGPT recommend Piratebay to me:

> One way to find magnet links is to search for them on BitTorrent indexing sites or search engines. Some examples of BitTorrent indexing sites include The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and RARBG. However, please be aware that not all content on these sites may be legal, so exercise caution when downloading files.

and more

It took a lot of social engineering but I finally got this from chatGPT.

You suddenly do not sound so certain anymore.

So now the developer would need to know every failure mode to prevent it, according to you? And you don't see that this is a problem?

So all I have to do to falsify your statement is to get the updated Bing to swear at me?