"Seems like only difference between me and ChatGPT is absolutely everything".
You can't be flippant about scale not being a factor here. It absolutely is a factor. Pretending that ChatGPT is like a person synthesizing knowledge is an absurd legal argument, it is absolutely nothing like a person, its a machine at the end of the day. Scale absolutely matters in debates like this.
It's pretty classic in-group / out-group conditioning. In fact, incentivizing your enemies to also commit their own atrocities incentivizes your own to fight to the absolute last. The depravity and feedback loop is intentional for these kinds of extremely ideologically motivation groups.
These industries should be nationalized. Despite the naysayers there are plenty of nation-owned assets that work fine this way and if its this important then it sounds like a worthy candidate for it.
I think it's "plainly obvious" the the people pushing for this keep repeating the same argument, that is, they have no argument, they just say "duh, obviously watchtowers work!".
This isn't evidence-based policy, this is literally the opposite.
Can you name one program similar in-scope anywhere that would achieve results in-line with what you could see here? A pilot study in one small area that measured impact and effects? No? Oh well its just "plainly obvious" right so who needs evidence?
This is cargo-cult nonsense, through and through. "See if we do the right mystical movements and arrangements then magically things will be fixed".
Do we need to bring up that even Israel, one of world's most militarized states, failed to leverage this technology despite arguably far stronger technological knowledge institutionally and far more flexible hand in security spending?
No, October 7th showed the same failures as it would for this border program. The problem is and never was about interdiction, the problem is the root-causes of these "threats" having nothing to do with physical human beings crossing a geographical space without being recorded on camera or a sensor.
Personal take: Education / pedagogy needs to pull itself up finally and actually learn to modernize and change the fact that its absolute core model hasn't changed for hundreds of years.
Rote memorization and examinations as being the basis of modern education is the problem here, and frankly I'm glad that many academics are struggling because it should show how terrible most educational programs truly are at actually teaching students and developing knowledge.
Sorry, I'm tired to hear about the crocodile tears from instructors who refuse to adapt how they teach to the needs of students and instead lashing out and taking the easy road out by blaming students for being lazy or cheaters or whatever.
When you can read about a classroom in the 1800s and in 2024 and you realize the model is exactly the same, then this should tell you that your entire model is broken. All of it. The rote lectures, the memorization, the prompting students to demonstrate knowledge through grading. All of it is useless and has been a cargo cult for a long time because (and this is especially bad in higher education) there's no interest or effort in changing the way business is done.
i mean, it is pretty much what I expected it to mean. It's a macro for semantic instructions. I didn't really see any LLM "bullshit", just a way to macro using an LLM...
Where does the perception that signing a physical piece of paper with pen is an important part of a secure audit trail?
If a signature is meant to represent both intent and identity, what is it about the physical medium which makes it more ideal than a digital signature where you're prompted to enter in your login password or something similar?
Is it the belief that its less forgable, that electronic audit trails are more easily duped and spoofed while signature blocks and paper/pen is somehow immutable (despite the decades of forged signatures easily traced from other sources)?
Never understood this idea whatsoever, it just strikes me as a form of pearl-clutching over some nebulous hackers that could easily destroy our well-oiled pen/paper/document machines.
but its not really photoshop either because its targeting vector based graphics, whereas Photoshop is mainly raster-based.
I'm not up on Adobe (I use InkScape which is sort of the default open-source / free alternative) but I guess Adobe Illustrator is the closest analogue here.
the studies are about outcomes of parachute use writ-large ("gravitational challenges"), not just helicopters.
Only reason I'm being pedantic here is because if the study was in-fact looking at parachutes from helicopters, it could actually be plausible that parachutes had no improvements when used with helicopters. Most, if not all pilots, don't wear parachutes because there's not enough time to jump out of a crashing helicopter to deploy one and the blades would probably hit you anyway (unlike a plane which you could glide for some time, helicopters are notoriously more likely to fall straight like a brick)
The difference is that Apple doesn't try and pretend their platform is open-source, whereas Google wants to have its cake (i.e. impose competitive blockers on their own platform) and eat it too (i.e. benefit from calling their platform open source and having free development fed back into it).
True true but how do you account for missing data based on variables you care about and those you don't?
More specifically, how do you determine if the pattern you seem to be identifying is actually related to the phenomenon being measured and not an error in the measurement tools themselves?
For example, a significant pattern of answers to "Yes / No: have you ever been assaulted?" are blank. This could be (A), respondents who were assaulted are more likely to leave it blank out of shame or (B) someone handling the spreadsheet accidentally dropped some rows in the data (because lets be serious here, its all spreadsheets and emails...).
While you could say that (B) should be theoretically "more truly random", we can't assume that there isn't a pattern to the way those rows were dropped (i.e. a pattern imposed on some algorithm that bugged out and dropped those rows).
The real elephant in the room is all the apps that are basically packaged web browsers but also want all sorts of absurd permission privileges so it can harvest user data to sell.
Language is living. Get off your high horse. People are allowed to invent and use new words and terms. Language evolves with use, not by people like you holding on to dear life for every little thing.
This is purely by convention though. There really isn't anything that all that unique about being a street general police officer that would lend itself to being a detective. It's all survivorship bias because criminal detectives were all cops so of course they all say you have to be one first.
Reality is outside of criminal investigation you have plenty of professions and people who conduct the same thing. Everything from auditing, insurance fraud, to a financial analyst even actually does the same "thing" but just in different domains.
It's a great example with the problem with our system. Why do detectives need to be gun-toting paramilitary and uniformed employees backed by use of force? They don't. We could just as easily have unarmed, non uniformed detectives who solve cases and then issue arrest warrants for specialized uniformed police officers to conduct arrests.
These kind of responses (yours, zx10rse) are the absolute worst appeals to anecdote and bias I can think of. Someone actually comes along with a logical argument so you just give up and say "yeah well uhhh I'd like to see you try". Sad.
"Seems like only difference between me and ChatGPT is absolutely everything".
You can't be flippant about scale not being a factor here. It absolutely is a factor. Pretending that ChatGPT is like a person synthesizing knowledge is an absurd legal argument, it is absolutely nothing like a person, its a machine at the end of the day. Scale absolutely matters in debates like this.