The thing that's most alarming to me every time I hear someone say "cis isn't offensive" is the complete lack of self-awareness, from groups that should really know better. But humans are humans so it just is what it is.

Or you can subscribe to gamepass for games, unlimited games

I think the trouble is, what baby are we throwing out with the bathwater in this case? We can't prevent LLMs from hallucinating (but we can mitigate it somewhat with carefully constructed prompts). So, use cases where we're okay with that are fair game, but any use case (or in this case, law?) that would require the LLM never hallucinates aren't attainable, and to get back earlier, this particular problem has nothing to do with capitalism.

This is a thing that is true of all LLMs, but it seems like you're misunderstanding the core issue. It CAN give outputs like that sometimes. What we CAN'T do is force it to give outputs like that ALL the time.

It will answer "I don't know" if its predictive text model guesses that the most common response to this would be "I don't know". To do that, to simplify a little, you could imagine that it reads your question, compares that to all the text in its training data, and tries to find the conversation that looks most like the question you asked, then answers whatever the person in the training data answered. But your exact question wasn't in its training data, so if you took that mental model, and instead had it compare to 1000 similar looking things in its training model and average them, then it would hopefully do a better job of coming up with something at least close to what you actually asked. Now take it to a million, or a billion.

When we're asking questions about the real world, we would prefer for it to answer based on knowledge about the real world. But what if it "matches" data from a work of fiction? Or just someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? Or true information, but about a different subject?

It doesn't know anything. It doesn't understand anything you say. It just looks at patterns that it learned from the training data and tries to guess what words are most likely to be said in that case. In other words, "here's one case where it didn't hallucinate" and "it will never hallucinate" are not the same thing at all.

Edit: To clarify, it doesn't search its training data to answer your question, so asking "was this in the training data" is impossible. By the time you interact with it, the data is long gone. It was just used for training.

Surely there's a breakpoint with plants though, right? You could transport a few plants, but probably not a whole garden, or a flower bed, or a tree old enough to have deep roots, etc

My point wasn't that the status quo is good or right. There's a fundamental problem if the person most motivated to improve the property - the tenant actually living there - isn't the one who the system rewards for doing so.

Pretending the system we have today is different than it is is just denying reality, and isn't an effective way to realize change. The reality that we live in is that by improving your own home while renting, you're a sucker who is being taken advantage of by the system.

There's a fundamental difference between furniture and an improvement to the underlying property itself. For example, if you repaint a fence, you can't take the paint with you, and the value of the paint itself was far lower than the labor cost to apply it to the fence.

They were remastered (which I think hurts the original argument), but I as I understand, the question of which is better is pretty divisive

Christmas in Japan is pretty much another holiday where if you're single you don't have anything to do. But unfortunately for OP, if you already don't have anyone trying to score you as a last minute date for Valentine's then probably nothing will change

I feel like in general, your chances of having sex with most people increase the longer you're around them.

Howdy! 🤠