"Most famous", "truly satisfying", "robust" are all words you're going to find in a burger commercial. "Rapid communication" primes for ordering fast food or similar. But I get how these are little things, and to be fair, they are. They're little priming cues to get to the big one.

Let's head to the ending, which is impressive. I'm going to remove some words, then ask you what comes to mind:

"A rich tapestry, a melding of different [..] into one cohesive and awe-inspring [...] that leaves every visitor with a deep sense of satisfaction."

Now. Let's be clear. On its own, this probably won't do much. A small echo, easily forgotten. But if this is used, say, to change multiple articles _then_ have follow-up ads? Targeting customers who have impulse control issues struggling with pre-diabetes?

It's easy to see how "write a customised version of this article to sell a hamburger to someone with X profile" can become an automated part of the internet in a fairly short timeline. That's a problem.

You're still gambling.

While that means the smart TV wouldn't be able to phone home with usage data, which is what this fight is really about, EU legislation could carve a path forwards. And that would be neat.

I find trying to socialize and make friends in an office situation to be incredibly stressful. Everyone in an office is there to primarily make money, and the politics implied make it hard for me to let my guard down and meaningfully connect with anyone.

I greatly prefer socializing with people over hobbies -- everyone is at the gathering willingly to enjoy a hobby, which means I have something in common with everyone participating.

Far superior, but then... I like having a groove and knowing when my next social gathering will be. I like routines. It sounds like you don't, which I can sympathize with, and I'm glad you have friends to spontaneously hang out with and hope you get to expand your circle and enjoy your life.

The dude won six Olympic wrestling events in a row. The seventh Olympics, he came in second. A twenty-eight year rein in one of the most practiced sports in the ancient world.

Eat your heart out, Tom Brady.

これらのフォーラムでさまざまな言語を見て、返信できるのは素晴らしいことです。私はいつも言語が苦手でした。またすぐに戻ってきてください。あなたの視点に感謝します。

In general, most mental health issues are chronic, and need multiple visits. In this case, that's part of the problem, as C.AI becomes more trusted over time, but the chance of a hallucination occurring grows with the number of visits, both increasing the eventual likelihood of an incident and compounding the harm.

> the first instinct should be work on reducing the chance and magnitude of damage, instead of giving up entirely

The first instinct should be to prove this attempt at therapeutic C.AI _actually works_. Then we can work on improvement, but right now, that hasn't happened. We don't let people practice medicine without a license for some very good reasons.

My fears for AI therapy becoming a more accepted practice is that we know, from research, the act of _having a person care_ is part of what makes therapy work. Humans are social creatures, for better and for worse, and loneliness is almost as good a predictor for bad health outcomes as smoking. [1] We have no meaningful evidence that an AI is going to cure loneliness, nor lead to better health outcomes, but we do know that protracted social media usage does worsen mental health outcomes. [2]

As well, having a cheap substitute means the focus will be on getting the cheap substitute to work, instead of addressing the larger ongoing mental health epidemic and health care cost crisis. Getting the AI to work will become the new focus, rather than getting to the root cause and creating meaningful policies to create a better society where health care isn't out of reach and strong, healthy friendships with people are supported by infrastructure.

C.AI replacing therapists is huge step towards a future where people are unable to afford to talk to another person. This attempt to substitute therapists, who are professional people who care, is a huge step towards that future. Do you want a future where Medicare only gives access to a chatbot, rather than a human professional? I don't want that, and I hope you don't either.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/loneliness-poses-health-... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915628/

Sure enough, the medication made me so nauseous I missed two days of work. Then I got to stop taking the medication, and go through withdrawal. Thanks, insurance companies.

I stopped playing Pokemon Go when it wanted forever access to my location, because that's creepy, and sure enough that was the right call.

The reason why a big concept in medical ethics is Do No Harm is because it is very easy to justify some bad outcomes for the sake of many good ones, similar to what is happening now with this application of character.ai -- it's easy to justify Mostly Good.

However, Mostly Good doesn't scale, because often patients need to seek medical attention more than once. Each visit then becomes an increasing risk factor of being hurt by treatment, eventually making malpractice inevitable.

_That's not good._ Move fast and break things cannot apply to the ethical practice of medicine, which is what is currently being attempted.

https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...

edit: We do not know the shooters motivations, nor do I presume to know. But wanted to add a link for context to the above comment to show context for the statement.

Not sure if it applies to your situation, but I know the perspective helped me, that if you're neurodiverse (especially autistic) then "just let it go and accept you're being paid" was advice that _never_ helped me. I'm autistic. That's just not how my brain is wired to work. I needed different strategies to get to a better place.

Scaling how likely a given direction was to actually be implemented, then giving an appropriate amount of effort, helped a lot. Then I could spend my time on what I _should_ be doing. Like refactoring, learning new libraries, or just reading a book.

I hope it gets better for you.

> I don’t think so.

> If I thought it was a good idea, I wouldn’t be sharing any of this stuff. >

> Google clearly has a long way to go before the parasite SEO era of Google ends. So in the meantime, I want to create as much competition in the parasite SEO industry as I can. The more people fighting for the spoils, the more ridiculous the whole situation gets. >

> But if a friend asked me if they should start a company to do this, my advice would be fuck no.

Making sure people see the end of the article, which ends with "fuck no" in the context of "should I do this?"

This is the financial market equivalent of flagging a security exploit, which I genuinely appreciate.

>

> “We have realized that this was a large urban center, which was integrated into the Silk Road network and dragged the Silk Road caravans toward mountains ... because they had their own products to offer,” Maksudov says.

Checking, did anyone else get to this part of the article and think "Yes, this shall be my anthropological model for dwarves in my D&D game"?

I'm going against the grain a little here, and say that's reasonable. Not all families are great to live with. Heck, I had some cousins I tried living with and nearly permanently damaged my relationship with them.

I will say deciding to live with an extended _found_ family can be awesome. There's usually someone around to help pick up slack, and there's nothing quite like the relationships you can form based on that extended time together.

Even the extended found family thing, though? Not always great. I'd say what communal living does is make for higher lows, and sometimes lower highs. If you're in abundant circumstances where you have multiple close relationships and survival/logistics aren't an issue, it's largely unnecessary -- but if you aren't, it's really worth trying.

The fact that other local businesses are viable because larger chains aren't available also seems to be a factor, but again, is a wave of prosperity already seen in other communities. It turns out, enabling entrepreneurism is really good for building a middle class!

The trick will be if this wave can continue, or if the prosperity will be overtaken by the capitalistic cannibalism (gentrification) that happens to economically-viable areas. In the meantime, this feels to me like an attempt at a feel-good story that millennials can and should be able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, just look at the Amish.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/540113.Where_There_Is_No... https://www.amazon.com/When-There-Doctor-Challenging-Self-re...