Sentrovasi

I've literally never heard about it until this post.

Looking at the reviews seems like a shame as the only complaints are the hardware limitations. Still won't be getting it until I finish (at least some of) my backlog.

Exactly.

On the plus side, maybe this will be a bit more economic incentive for the countries affected not to drag their heels on climate control.

I genuinely had students believe that what ChatGPT was feeding them was fact and try to source it in a paper. I stamped out that notion as quick as I could.

I think the problem is more that given the short attention span of the general public (myself included), these "definitions" (I don't believe that slavery can be "defined" as good, but okay) are what's going to stick in the shifting sea of discourse, and are going to be picked out of that sea by people with vile intentions and want to justify them.

It's also an issue that LLMs are a lot more convincing than they should be, and the same people with short attention spans who don't have time to understand how they work are going to believe that an Artificial Intelligence with access to all the internet's information has concluded that slavery had benefits.

In case I was unclear, I meant it more as "people think that nothing can be done". I was addressing the overall sentiment of many of these comments that seemed so betrayed that their constitution didn't protect them from climate change.

I don't think there is a constitutional right to not get hit by giant meteors either.

I think the need to peg action to constitutional rights is a very uniquely American thing. In most other countries a simple addition to the legislature might suffice, whereas here if it's not in a constitution written many years before climate change became a popularly known thing, suddenly nothing can be done.

Then possibly something needs to change - add a new Amendment or something. But to claim that old laws written with an old understanding of how the world works needs to somehow carry the semantic weight of something it was never written to do seems a bit much.

I think comparing vaping to drinking water is disingenuous - it is not needed and has active harms. Just because one thing is less harmful than another doesn't mean we can't regulate both heavily.

The scary thing to me is that humans are predictable, or at least, predictable in their unpredictableness.

With AI, it's a black box I don't understand. When it suddenly crashes, I literally will have no idea why.

I went on to read that it also has six colours as opposed to the seven on a "real" rainbow as well. I'm getting more educated every day.

I guess the difference is we expect humans to fuck up, but autonomous driving is meant to eventually be the thing that replaces that and stops us fucking up.