It isn’t like it’s difficult to educate yourself about health related shit.

Just let people do their thing, boss.

Imagine this is some truly errant copilot instance truly embracing its slop destiny.

lol

It’s pretty uncontroversial that the paper is hazardous. And when you’re sweating the BPA absorbs into the skin more readily. The issue is more about the dose curve; according to the FDA and other regulators, it’d be impossible to hit the upper limit on exposure by just handling receipts, while there’s plenty of evidence that there is no harmless threshold. Kinda like lead, albeit without a doubt BPA is less harmful than lead.

Speak for yourself. Aside from the principle, some of us don’t want to be advertised to in the comfort of our own home/bed/while we’re camping or whatever. Ads don’t have to be actively flashing, spaz-inducing insanity to be objectionable.

Not to mention that by definition an ad like this WILL be seen and attended to, even if only momentarily. That in itself is also objectionable.

Genuine AIDS. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying and didn't happen with such regularity.

Any decent alternatives? DuckDuckGo was always been awful for me in terms of relevant search results.

It does when the product being sold is sold based on how intelligent (and thus how capable) it is. Unfortunately with people intelligence is merely an imprecise proxy of capability or organisational productivity.

So what does OpenAI even lead at? Name recognition because they were first? At some point they were supposed to be specialising in medicine but I notice no difference between Gemini and ChatGPT when it comes to medical questions or analysis.

My prediction is OpenAI will be the first big one to go bankrupt or be acquired, which is also probably why they are rushing this IPO: gotta get the founders cashed out.

Somewhat of an aside, but I have no idea if AGI is actually possible with LLMs, but Claude is the closest thing to a person that I’ve used (even if it has its moments of abject retardation - not unlike humans, I guess).

The Americans can cry about Chinese censorship and turn around and use Claude or Opus or Gemma or whatever, but the Europeans just throw a fit and then have to use one of the two anyway. And that whole crying about something while being completely helpless vis-a-vis doing anything about it is the definition of Europe so far this century. Globally irrelevant outside Germany.

Europe's sense of superiority and actual global importance/relevance is assbackwards.

The CDC did fine, but not WHO. I wouldn't even call WHO public health experts at this point - it's just a political racket that's pretty analogous to the UN generally in terms of how objective and useful they are.

I've had 12+ COVID vaccines and one of my degrees is a BSc so it isn't like I'm some antivaxxing conspiratorial anti-science hillbilly. WHO isn't really about science though, they're about funding and pushing particular agendas which is... antithetical to actual science.

I think Daily Mail links would be more informative, unironically.

Most universities, certainly in the top 50 globally, export a significant share of their student population because a significant share of their student population consists of international students. Those students return home once they obtain their degrees. Princeton’s overall share of international students is around 25%.

2nd, a huge proportion of students in general at universities, including Ivy League unis, are not from wealthy families. This can be contrasted to the the 19th century demographic, which basically consisted of only individuals from wealthy families.

Today, most students are there to get a degree from a prestigious institution so they can get a good job with upward mobility potential. Again, contrast with the 19th century, for which this policy was designed.

Having done an LLB at a top 40 law school globally, I can tell you that the pressure on international students is immense due to visa implications, parental pressures, and poor options compared to native students if they fail. International students cheat, as do native students, and it is rational from a purely economic standpoint for them to do so. In my experience, international students are more likely to cheat than natives, but once cheating is occurring it is rational for all students to cheat due to the resultant grade inflation.

My argument is mostly that because of how demographics at university have changed over the past 150 years, a university education is a means to an end, and it's really just getting a piece of paper (ideally from a prestigious institution) for most students. International students in particular drive the cheating and make it highly rational for all students to cheat, but even if universities did not enroll overseas students, cheating would still be pervasive simply because the demographics and purposes of university have changed since 1850. I hope you can understand the argument.

Yes, obviously.

> VPNs are snake oil

Huh?

And brother, I don't give a shit what Princeton students have to say about the invigilation situation. That's an inmates running the asylum kind of thing. It's obvious that such a system is unworkable in the modern world when Ivy League schools in particular (and most schools in the top 50 globally) export many of the students they educate. A university education these days is, for most students, a means to an end, which is employment. And employers care about grades, meaning there is an unrelenting and rational incentive to cheat.

The world where only wealthy gentlemen go to university and are highly incentivised to learn instead of cheat no longer exists.

Either way, international students make up a huge percentage of the student population, as evidenced by your documentation. And in fact, it's too funny to me that you specify undergrad - keeps you from mentioning that there were 533 Chinese grad students, nearly 5x more than the the country with the 2nd most grad students, India.