swansont

There’s a danger in “both sides” arguments since the number and degree matter. You can say “both sides break the law” about two groups of people, but if it’s a rash of felonies vs a couple of parking tickets it gives a false sense of equivalence Trump’s dismantling of the government reeks of retribution against his immediate predecessors.

That should tell you something about “detox” claims. The Mayo clinic says “Detoxing the colon also is not recommended or needed for any medical condition.” Other legitimate medical sites say similar things. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/expert-answers/colon-cleansing/faq-20058435

That’s a good question, and something you should learn. If you did the search I suggested, one of the top results (skip the AI summary; it can’t be trusted) is https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1773844/ The NIH is a trusted source. Prominent journals, too. Sites trying to sell you something less so. It takes time to learn these things, but putting in the effort is worth it.

How are we to know what you are hearing? Only you know this. The first order of business would be to do your own homework and use a search engine. This isn’t a search engine service. Go find out what some reputable source says about hypnotherapy for colon issues like IBS. Then you can come here and ask questions

Moderator NoteThis is a discussion forum, not your blog. What is it you wish to discuss?

It comes from an Arabic word (is Islamic a language? Is algebra a tenet of the religion?) and what does that have to do with anything about teaching them the math?

OMFG, absolutely NOT. It was one thing to try to discern bits about the AI algorithm based on chats (probably not fruitful, but if people want to do that), but it’s CLEARLY not allowed to submit questions asked of you to an AI. I have no interest in chatting with your AI. If you don’t know what this thread is about, then it stops here.

You’re acting like you weren’t involved in the conversation. It’s almost like it was generated by an entity that didn’t have access to the prior discussion.

That much was obvious. And yet you decided to pontificate on the topic, as you have on a few others. You might ponder on the issue of credibility.

You had a hypothesis, “When the cognitive capacity of a system reaches a certain threshold, a kind of sentience inevitably emerges” but when you were challenged on defining some terms, you abandoned it. You had another, “The AI isn't just responding to the literal text; it's adapting its own logical framework in response to the nature of the interaction.” but when I raised the possibility that it wasn’t adapting anything, but was programmed to agree with you, you agreed and said it was a “core bias” which is strange since it seems very much at odds with the original proposal. IOW, you are modifying your responses, much like you noted about the AI. (Only with humans we call that trolling) Since you keep changing these discussion points I’m not sure what the point of all this is. Nothing I’ve read rebuts the notion that it’s chatbot that trues to keep you engaged in conversation. Although I’ve not scrutinized the long flowery exchange you posted recently, even that fits with it adopting the style of discussion you wanted. So: can you present a concise statement of what this is about?

It can’t interpret the theory, so it can’t misinterpret it.

I would think it’s kinda hard to hide the data crawling necessary for the training of these LLMs so while the concept no doubt existed, I doubt they had a working system for long. Self-driving, like Tesla, have been up-front about the need for the data they gather being important to them. The problem with LLMs is less about regulations in place to help them, since the issue is restraining them. And they blatantly violate copyright laws and have publicly admitted the need to do so.

Spoken like someone who has no clue what a PhD in science entails. (Or even an undergraduate degree from any legitimate source, to some extent.) And you still haven’t explained the relevance. I must confess I haven’t heard of the two nail experiment. Your description of this is muddled but if I understand it I’m not sure why you think this means anything. Water waves will diffract going around nails and interfere, with nothing about that is odds with what physics teaches. Or why an atom would go straight through.

What, numerically, constitutes “enormous”?

The fact that you feel that many of those in your country are ignorant, have offensive attitudes, and represent the worst aspects of humanity doesn’t excuse the point of view.

Nveredward has been added

So? Data generally has some kind of experimental error. How precise and accurate does it need to be? Does it need to be 0.01%? Don’t you still get useful information if it’s 1% or 10%, or (in some cases) just order-of-magnitude estimates?

It has happened, but most of the time, no, the sockpuppets still talk nonsense.

The failures are being posted on social media. Listing presidents with their dates of office. Counting the number of “b”s in blueberry. Complicated stuff like that.

And that draws a distinction between what moderators do and what admins do. Any behind-the-scenes tinkering with how the site runs is admin. Moderation is enforcing rules about posting and decisions related to that. And there’s the maxim that anyone who actively wants to be a moderator is not qualified to be one.

IMO, You need to do your own homework.

Moderator NoteUse your existing thread. Repeatedly posting the same material without engaging is considered spamming, and can get you banned.

I think some things are driven by lawyers saying “Do it this way so we don’t get sued” and appealing to common sense doesn’t make for a strong argument in court.

Can’t say for sure, but its existence might be due to (an interpretation of) privacy laws in existence somewhere. Internationally-used software has to comply with everybody’s requirements*. So if someone e.g. thought that this was some kind of personal data, there would have to be an option to protect against its dissemination. Again, I don't know this to be the case. It’s just a plausibility argument *(We had to switch hosting this year because of one country’s arguably misguided law)

But wifi is typically less than a Watt, IIRC.(When I bought a wi-fi router at work I had to prove it complied with some federal rule on EM emissions on government property) so you’d need an amplifier