But that’s exactly how an LLM is trained. It doesn’t know how words are spelled because words are turned into numbers and processed. But it does know when its dataset has multiple correlations for something. Specifically, people spell out words, so it will regurgitate to you how to spell strawberry, but it can’t count letters because that’s not a thing that language models do.

Generative AI and LLMs are just giant reconstruction bots that take all the data they have and reconstruct something. That’s literally what they do.

Like, without knowing what your answer is for assassin, I will assume that your issue is that the question is probably “How many asses are in assassin?” But, like, that’s a joke. Assassins only has one ass, just like the rest of us. That’s a joke. And nobody would ever spell assassin as assin, so why would it learn that there are two asses in assassin?

I’m confused where you are getting your information from, but this is not particularly special behavior.

Actually, the Rs issue is funny because it WAS trained on that exact information which is why it says strawberry has two Rs, so it’s actually more proof that it only knows what it has been given data on. The thing is, when people misspelled strawberry as “strawbery”, then naturally, people respond, " Strawberry has two Rs." The problem is that LLM learning has no concept of context because it isn’t learning anything. The reinforcement mechanism is what the majority of its data tells it. It regurgitates that strawberry has two Rs because it has been reinforced by its dataset.

You are really upset that I called you pal and that you misread things. I am sorry for you.

You are really upset that I called you pal and that you misread things. I am sorry for you.

You either have an illegal but very popular activity run by “the black market”, or a legal but very popular activity run by the government and capitalists.

Right there.

Still didn’t answer mine yet, though. I apologize for being inconvenient and remembering things you don’t.

Please point out where I said it would stop black market gambling. Please do. I have unlimited time, and you have unlimited disappointment to give me.

I said that black market gambling is STILL A THING, so your point that making it legal is somehow stopping it is wrong, and obviously so because that’s how words work, pal. So, anyway, please feel free to revive my brain with your refutation because I so carelessly didn’t say the thing you said I said.

You know you can make gambling against the law by going after the brokers and not the betters, right? Gambling destroys lives and pretending that legalization is the only thing stopping black market gambling is brain dead.

It’s telling that you blame control for why more people are betting because anyone that studies addiction would tell you you’re a fucking moron, and I think you should remind yourself of that fact on an hourly basis, because you have only one idea for banning gambling. Consider that banning gambling by going after brokers is going after those that profit from the whole thing, and you’ll realize that, woah, it will have a positive effect.

If no one cares, why didn’t they disclose they used AI?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Paying workers more is fine, but you’re saying that the costs for reproduction should come from parents, and then you’re saying they should come from the rich. People without children should contribute to childcare costs, and they are incentivized to do so, too, because children are important to pretty much everything. By having the government fund childcare, the rich do contribute more.

Whatever you said is inconsistent.

I see where you are coming from. I also think you are wrong.

While there are sexual connotations behind naked ridership, there is also several other connotations involved that are meant through the scene. I see the scene as meant to demean and dehumanize the human being ridden, a literal replacement for an animal. Nakedness is often used in media to show vulnerability and, especially in this context, power differentials, and since the rider is clothed, viewing this as sexual doesn’t feel like a correct interpretation. Using a child as the rider might make sense in some contexts (say, as a metaphor for innocence when enjoying an activity through the suffering of the exploited), but I do kind of agree that the current scene doesn’t meaningfully change with aging the character up.

But if they strike, the poor workers won’t get paid!!! \s

???

Why are you being so rude?

Don’t hide behind the shitty half-assed news reports, you coward. Just name the actual Democrat that fired their vaccine board, so we can end this. Just name the actual Democrat that banned abortion federally, instead of posting fifteen useless articles. Just name the Democrat that kept child marriage protected because it’s easier. Just name the Democrat that deported my neighbor, specifically, since you seemed to have known him. Just name the Democrat that implemented a voting suppression measure, assuming you can find one within the last 25 years, instead of you saying that’s the same thing as ranked choice, which have been challenged by Republicans in every single instance (and this is the only instance you found for Democrats, if you could call it that, lol). Just name the Democrat that called queer people slurs openly and wants them tried for child sex crimes.

It should be so easy, right? If they’re the same, just fucking name them.

I don’t remember when the Democrats deported my neighbor or when they called self-proclaimed Nazis good guys or when they wanted to take away food stamps from single mothers or when they wanted to make voting harder or when they didn’t want to ban child marriage or when they wanted to take away the only source of food and housing for children, people with disabilities, and the elderly or when they wanted to ban vaccines or when they wanted to ban abortion or when they wanted to make being queer a child sex crime or when they ignored all of science, but I guess they were just too smart to do any of that.

I always get extra disappointed by the Outer Worlds, because I always confuse it with the Outer Wilds and would rather play that game.

The saying “you can’t butter a fly” is an idiom expressing that someone or something is too difficult to influence or manipulate. It’s rooted in the idea that butterflies, with their delicate nature, are virtually impossible to convince to do anything against their will, let alone “butter” them in a literal sense.

By your logic, when they freed the slaves, they really should’ve done it slowly instead of all at once, because look how many racists it made!

Or was civil rights too fast as well?

Same argument that was made for gay people sharing locker rooms, bigots never get new material. If you’re not comfortable sharing a bathroom with someone, then, ya know, you don’t have to use it.

Why is it queer people have to suffer for bigotry? Why not just be less of a bigot?

Not sure what you’re arguing about, but you do you, man.

Okay, buddy