I can't come come up with one (unless we program something to hallucinate ;)

Is that a failure of the example or the rule in neuroscience?

I extremely disliked that "rule" immediately, I'm quite sus on it.

Was that not the intent??

I think you went around in circles too much.

Consciousness theories must be falsifiable and inputs non-trivial - that is maybe the worse way to say that. Much of this could have been said better.

It reads like you are flexing your disciplines special words and language for normal shit -> a plumber can talk at you and you'll have no idea what they said too, especially if they try to do that.

As an intelligent person, who apparently understands this topic, an article like this can only be a flex for "job security" (like the plumber who describes plunging a toilet as the act of: "Hydrodynamic Pressure Rebalancing accomplished by a manual, oscillatory pressure-differential induction cycle.")

OR... they cannot simplify further due to lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I honestly am unsure what this is.

That is the nicest thing I can say.

If that was more technical tho, like something more similar to technical writing... I would have had Copilot summarise it for me.

You are correct, the future is collaborative with AI, but not everything will still need to be collaborative...

Technical writing, like manuals and whatnots, that is simply akin to a math problem that, post calculator, has always calculated by calculators - even by people who didn't need them.

It will not be better, there is absolutely loss, it will still happen.

Anyone in disagreement needs to read about Palintr and what has intentionally been said about it

ICE at one time was legitimate - their previous purpose had legitimacy... past tense.

ICE will not exist at some point in the hopefully sooner future than later.

No amount of nuance will change fundamental failure to success.

This is the most important thing on earth to many Trumpets, they "made saving the children" their "excuse" for letting the country be gutted.

P e d 0 in chief

Your going to feel humbled.

The biggest problem with this, is the real reason we are sinking "drug boats" - "Pirate America" as I like to think of it.

You reverse engineer our tech giants - you don't get to participate in global trade.

Outside of an invasion of the US - something I don't know would even work (Canada full compliance would be required to have any chance at all) - I don't think there is a course of action to prevent/sidestep that course of action.

I assure you, the powers that be, already know this.

Actually, this is what I've been wondering since ChatGPT changed whatever they did recently - my interaction experience radically changed, not necessarily worse, not really at all less functional, but absolutely different now and I'm unsure how I feel about it.

I agree with redoing rules every update - and absolutely do rules, extremely clearly that you want legitimate critique and feedback, not sycophancy -> always test that functionality.

It does get tricky when they decide to interpret the same rules differently seemingly at random.

Also frustrating dealing with changes like what has happened with Copilot - the internal rules change so frequently and are so narrowly defined, it's almost pointless to even define your own rules for that platform.

Sometimes tho, I found it worked better to start something in Copilot and then bring it elsewhere after a point. I do a few things like that between AI

THIS.

THIS RIGHT HERE ->

is how AI is meant to be used.

Don't ask it to think for you - it cannot do that.

It can do millions of things like this tho...

A new chat is a restart - not in total, but you can do that too. It doesn't learn us - it cleverly delivers us what we have suggested we want to hear, what works, it does more of.

If you want it to do less of whatever - you do a new chat.

I'm brilliant.

I do math better with a calculator. So does everyone, my brilliance doesn't change that I am human, a calculator will not forget to carry a one to oversimplify, it is smarter to accurate use a calculator to do math problems... is there something wrong with that?

Why is this different?

Being all "PC" and "nice" about stuff that is what it is, or isn't -- THAT adds to ignorance.

I never have to turn off shields - on one hand the number of times I've had to do that.

Maybe I have something additional installed I don't know.

The Apple engineers, with their top level unfettered access to the best Apple AI - they'll convince shareholders to fund it forever, even if normal people never catch on.

Fr tho, no ads - I'm not making money off them, I've got no invite code for you, I'm a human - I just don't get it. I've probably told 500 people about Brave, I don't know any that ever tried it.

I don't ever know what to say. You're not wrong, as long as you never try to do something else.

The world runs on Windows. Oftentimes, outdated iterations of windows even.

I think it's safe to say that it is impossible to exist in the world today without interacting with a Microsoft product as part of daily life - far more so than with Google, Apple, Amazon, Samsung, etc.