Did you check those citations to make sure they actually contained the information they were being cited for? Because I've asked difficult questions too and have had mixed results. I would never trust an LLM as a teacher. They make stuff up all the time, and when you're learning you're in the very worst position to be checking the information you're given.

This isn't quite the right analogy, because a vaccine doesn't do something different from PrEP, it just does it in a different way. At the individual level it might make a compelling case (but more of that in a bit), but for the systemic purpose of eradicating the disease, not so much; not until it's given out during childhood like other vaccines.

>But there is also this: the inconvenient drugs that block transmission are mainly used by HIV positive people and people who are exposed to them. Someone not in that situation is not going to get on a train of injections every three months. (I've never even heard of these drugs until this submission and its discussion threads.) Whereas a HIV vaccine could be something more interesting to the general population. There will likely be some people who get the vaccine who ignored the transmission-blocking drugs.

The fact of the matter is, HIV is a shitty virus, by which I mean it's an inefficacious one. It has a bad spreading mechanism and it has effects that are too severe and too obvious. The reason people ignore those drugs (besides them being expensive) is that HIV is so rare, and there are overall better methods to avoid catching it. So most people will likely never have sex with a carrier, and of those who would, most will already be using condoms. Among this latter group, I don't know that a vaccine is that compelling. HIV is not the only infection you can contract from unprotected sex. If you have a stranger in front of you with whom without a vaccine you would have used a condom, would you have unprotected sex with them after having been inoculated? While it might make sense to get the vaccine anyway as a second layer of defense, in all likelihood it won't have any effect on your personal safety.

The owner of the phone doesn't know that. They have no control over or insight into the officer's brain to know what they'll do. The officer might suspect the phone-wiping functionality exists and decide not to enter the password. If we start talking about ultimate causes then judicial matters become infinitely complex. What immediately caused the phone being wiped is the wrong password being entered by the officer.

On the other hand, if you purposefully take an extreme or un-PC position (e.g. "humans should commit voluntary extinction", "some people should have less rights than others"), its own context can make it default to contradicting you even if you dial back to a more nuanced position, even to the point of self-contradiction.

That rules shouldn't be broken is implied by what a rule is. If I tell it to not violate its permissions, do I also need to tell it to obey when I tell it not to violate its permissions, and so on?

But just for the sake of argument I'll grant it and amend my statement: What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on irrelevant political issues. A cat shelter doesn't need to have an official position on abortion to function, and in all likelihood having one would be counter to its purposes.

>Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd.

I don't understand what you're saying. You switched tracked halfway through the thought from talking about communities that distinguish between things that are or aren't political to rejection of taking political stances.

What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on political issues. This is not merely not absurd, but pretty much necessary for any organization that doesn't have ideological goals and doesn't want to foster internal factions.

Like the sibling comment said, just banning cryptocurrency might be political or it might not, depending on the reason for it. Rejecting reasons such as "crypto bad" is a tenable position if an organization seeks to maintain a neutral stance.

How is that political? It's just a decision based on competing priorities. By this interpretation an animal's decision to either sleep or eat is also political.

What are you talking about? Whether something is allowed to be challenged has nothing to do with whether it's political. Actually, what even is not allowed to be challenged? I struggle to come up with a single example.

Listicles and those sorts of things were pretty pointless, but they didn't beat around the bush like LLMs do. I really don't exaggerate when I say I've never seen a human write like that. Like, the moment I start reading AI responses I feel the urge to skip ahead to get to the point. I probably read at most like 10% of the words they spit out.

That's because AIs make mistakes no human would. If you're documenting a function, you might misspell something (or orthographically spell something that should be misspelled), or confuse two functions with similar names; you won't reference a function or feature that doesn't and has never existed.