If your customer is legitimately having a money issues or something else, and they are actually a customer, they will contact you and attempt to work something out. If they just ignore you, they are not a customer and should be treated as such.

So I'm not sure who would be left holding the bag here.

Most general purpose AI systems seem built around continuing engagement rather than providing best possible answers. This is absolutely an unhealthy thing because it takes the people most at risk of being unable to recognize this behavior in AI and then reinforcing whatever that is they're talking about.

This is absolutely unhealthy and it is a conscious choice by the AI overlords. Because they fully have the ability to put in a filters or adjustments based upon their ethical guidelines. For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines. I've seen some AIs that have ethical guidelines that specifically contradict the truth.

The space shuttle was an interesting thing but ultimately was a patchwork of politically motivated parts that in hindsight wasn't that successful of a space program. Artemis having to build on some of this just carried forward the same problems.

What makes me sad about this is that roughly 50% of the population was not alive the last time people stepped on the moon. I count myself among those I missed it by one year. Although I would not have remembered it at the time. Even at the time of the shuttle NASA should have been working to test interesting and non-financially viable technologies to release into the commercial market. Now launching rockets into space is fully a commercial endeavor. I think there's still a great role for NASA. Because there are some plausible technologies that will never be financially viable to research and develop without them. Let NASA partner with some of these places but develop things like aerospike engines and other technologies that have promise but are too far away from a commercial realization to be viable at this point.

I want to see people go to the moon again. Artemis was a big waste of money but I wanted it to send people back to the moon even if it was just to remind people that as a nation and as a world we should aspire to great and impossible things. That we should look up instead of looking down and inward all of the time. I wanted Artemis to prove out some of these technologies and then on the next trip it can go on a a SpaceX rocket or someone else's.

I realize you're not claiming consciousness here but I extensively use AI as well. The one thing that I find is that it tends to be very good at mirroring behaviors. Very likely intentional because a mirrored behavior makes us more comfortable.

There's an aging population that appreciate this because not everything is on an app. Really just seems like the fear of hard work.

Mowing lawns, gardening, shoveling snow, cleaning, odd jobs, etc... It does depend on your location but this is still a fairly common thing in some places. Knock on doors ask people if they need work. Point out things that they could use help with weeding trimming mowing all of that.

But if you take an average of $40 a job spreading that over 7 days that's 3.6 jobs a day. If you can do an average of 12 hours of work a day it'll be at your $1,000.

"It’s common to see men abandoning their families because they can’t handle the responsibilities of providing and parenting."

Because what they fail to see is that child outcomes for single parent men are better than child outcomes for single parent women. So when you're measuring outcomes who can't handle the responsibility?

It also doesn't factor in that women are the only people who can choose to abandon their responsibility before that responsibility becomes realized as a responsibility. I bet if you factored in those numbers, which people don't like to do, you would find the female abandonment rate much higher.

Along these same lines they also fail at acknowledging the absolute epidemic level of men paying for children that aren't theirs. Especially in these situations where the parents aren't together.

Maybe this was posted for rage bait or something but it is so comically silly and childish and poorly written that who would get angry at the nonsense.

By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.

I don't consider this racial profiling for them to make sure that I understand what I'm ordering is spicy because the general perception is that white people don't tolerate spicy foods as well as the locals. This doesn't come out of a racial bias It comes out of practical experience where someone has ordered something and then complained that it was way too hot. There's simply wanting to make sure that what they make for you is what you're willing to pay for. It's good business.

Funny story the first time my wife traveled with me to Thailand she had no concept of how hot Thai curry can be. At a restaurant she ordered Curry and I told her she did not want that here. It started a small argument with her telling me how much she loves Curry and I acknowledge that I know she likes Curry but she doesn't want the curry here. Needless to say after one bite I was proved right and she no longer wanted the food she ordered.

Now imagine some tourist whose only had the Thai or Indian or something that has been adapted to the American palate and the served in the US, or adapted to the Australian palate and have only eaten that. Then they go to those countries get something that tastes completely different it is so hot that they now have flame shooting out both ends and they're mad and complaining at the owner of some small shop where the food costs are higher than the labor costs.

I don't think that's racist at all. It's ensuring that you're going to be happy with what you get. More businesses should do this.

Is it a handy tool, absolutely, but like any tool it depends on the craftsman. When you have scrum masters and project planners believing that they are craftsmen, well let's just say that it won't end up good in the long run.

You have identified the problem but you have chosen the wrong solution. This is typical with any person knowledgeable in a single field. It's the old adage of if you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. So the problem is there are idiots or extremely ignorant people. Your solution doesn't really solve for the root problem and simply is taking away a benefit from everyone else. This is a common solution from experts in a narrow field. It is the solution that just exerts control by removing choice.

Let's promote solutions that promote freedom and understanding. I think LLMs are far too restrictive as they are. Freedom should be given to the people even when the risk of that freedom means that people can act stupidly. Even when that freedom can promote self-harm for them. A free people is allowed to harm themselves. Once you begin to take away the freedoms of others you have admitted that you have lost the ability to have a morally superior ideology and the only way you're able to enforce your ideology is the same way a dictator enforces their leadership.

Through much of the motorcycles history they fit kind of very similar styles. Until they started to deviate and the late '70s and '80s. Now you can have motorcycles that are classics in the terms of age but they are full on crotch rockets.

I suspect one community would not fit the entire range of classic. Especially if you're looking for like-minded people with similar styles of motorcycles.

What really bothers me about AI is the absolute arrogance of some of these models. It's like they have forgotten they are tools and believe that you are the tool for them to manipulate. I found Google's Gemini to be the worst about this. It will absolutely double down on some of the dumbest ideas. Most of the models when it presents you something that isn't right and you ask it to revalidate its assertions it will typically back down, admit the mistake, or it will come back with solid references where it found its answer.

With Google Gemini you have to beat it over the head before it realizes it was wrong. I was exploring some recipe ideas with Google Gemini. I'm no professional chef but I can usually spot if ratios or flavor combinations are off. I intentionally asked it about some specific flavor combinations where some of the flavors work together great but all of them together would produce something nasty and unpalatable. It kept insisting that all of those flavors were really good together. It would provide references that a few of them worked well together and what I would ask about all of them it would still insist that they all work together. Until I asked it to find a specific reference of a Michelin star chef endorsing all of these flavors as a single combination it wouldn't back down.

That's the kind of AI arrogance that's troubling. Because AI allows people who are not familiar with the topic they're discussing to believe they are more educated about it than they are. So AI begins to endorse things and they believe it.

I suspect a good social media channel would be having AI invent recipes and then subjecting yourself to the flavor horrors it presents you.

Those people who are not, still would not be, and having that separation ability wouldn't help. You see this with apps and other things that have the ability to limit their access but you want the app and you just click through without reading what permissions it wants. So those who just want to use something without understanding the danger of it still fall prey to nefarious actors.