guess, and sound confident while doing it.

Right, and that goes for the things it gets “correct” as well, right? I think “bullshitting” can give the wrong idea that LLMs are somehow aware of when they don’t know something and can choose to turn on some sort of “bullshitting mode”, when it’s really all just statistical guesswork (plus some preprogrammed algorithms, probably).

… a flow that can reasonably check itself for errors/hallucinations? There’s no fundamental reason why it couldn’t.

Turing Completeness maybe?

Useless for us, but not for them. They want us to use them like personalised confidante-bots so they can harvest our most intimate data

Ah

Lol where is this from

Idk if you’d consider it a “hobby” (even though I’d say that has more consumerist connotations), but I’d strongly suggest finding a creative outlet. Personally I believe that there’s no such thing as an “uncreative” person, it’s just that most people never get the opportunity to learn a creatively rewarding skill well (and even when they do, many are left with no time/energy after work). It’s a catch-22. Still, unless you want to keep being a cog in the machine you gotta sacrifice something.

Also, art (in a general sense) is a lot better with human contact, idk what you’re talking about that is “doesn’t work”. You gotta find like-minded people. Sometimes you’re lucky and meet like-minded people by happenstance, sometimes you gotta go out of your way to find them (even if by saying it like that I still feel like I’m underplaying how hard that can be).

A final but perhaps more important suggestion is, learn about something. Instead of binging another tv show every week, mix it up with some educational internet browsing, or books, or perhaps you enjoy videoessays more. Again, an environment where you can meet people is better, but higher education has also turned into a human grinder that spits out ready-made workers for the machine so I can’t sincerely recommend it. But it could still be worth considering (depending on where you are… definitely not worth a 100k debt).

TL:DR find ways of satisfying your inner curiosity and creativity.

Absolutely! He simply has a very original take on “freedom”, but we all know that’s a tricky word to pin down, so don’t think about it too much, and leave it to the big dogs to tell you when your freedom is being protected.

Instructions unclear, am currently chilling in a hot tub with three big hairy men… when do the bears show up?

How are you defining authority? My understanding is it’s specifically referring to “power over”; via implicit/explicit coercion, threat, manipulation, and so on. I don’t see why opposition to such uses of power, and the desire to build alternative systems which don’t rely on such means, has to be a negative or “naive” or “unrealistic” thing.

Are there no anarchists on hexbear?

They can use the state to do that for them

and the company

Surely the company would never be just as authoritarian as the state!

~ [cue anti-consumer subscription models and user policies]

Our justice system might not be perfect, but it is the best option we have.

This was said about every system throughout history to justify injustice.

Say what you want about marxist-leninists but they’re not “very extreme right fascists”. Do you have any evidence for your claim or are you just doing your part in decreasing political literacy?

Ohh, I see

Equality is everyone being treated the same way regardless of differences.

Generally, equality is just about equality of freedom or “power to –”. If someone needs support to achieve their goals (as long as this doesn’t involve “power over” others / oppression) then of course it is important that there be societal structures/networks in place to help them, or at least “meta-structures” that can facilitate the organisation of such supporting networks.

Of course, “freedom” is a poorly defined word in itself, but imo the “everyone treated the exact same” (or worse, “everyone should be the same”) interpretations are not in the spirit of “freedom” and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were constructed in bad faith (not to promote “equity” but to discredit “equality”).

But ultimately it’s just semantics, and if you like calling it equity that’s cool, it’s just good to keep in mind that people who still use “equality” can easily be referring to the exact same thing.

Thanks for the info.

My concern is less about the reliability of the provided info and more the bias of the voice/language being used, and the choice of which facts get reported on. To me, this Politico article reads as rather sympathetic to the right wing.

Ultimately I don’t think “unbiased” reporting truly exists, it’d be better if journalists (and their editors/employers) were transparent about conflicts of interest, like in scientific publications (even though it’s not like that’s likely to happen, so the reality is that anyone seeking such info has to find it out by themself). Not to mention how the left-right spectrum is pretty subjective and vague.

Does anyone have an alternative source?Politico Europe is owned by Axel Springer SE, and Axel Springer was apparently like Germany’s Murdoch.

Not my photo and I don’t entirely remember its context but I’d saved it back then because it really struck me how blatant the Bernie censorship was

I’m not surprised one bit