iNow

No. It’s largely a relic term absent in peer reviewed literature and used only to discuss topics with lay people and bait clicks.

Define: Living Define: Intelligence Explain: How they’re measured objectively, and whether it’s binary or exists along a spectrum Do so: Elsewhere, as it’s off topic here

You assume I’m unfamiliar. You know what they say about people who assume, right? Stop acting like an ass. You said being removed from a ballot doesn’t matter. It very clearly does to anyone seeking to win. This is remedially true and self-evident. Move along. There’s a separate issue about whether he’ll stay removed from said ballot or get removed from others. Maybe try focusing there instead of speculating about what me and other posters here understand about US presidential election processes and primaries.

My money is on all this being moot anyway. Roberts is likely calling every legal contact in his Rolodex trying to conceive of a legitimate way to punt

Exactly correct. Let’s use this opportunity now to review these exchanges with this in mind: YOU: I don’t see why getting kicked off a ballot in certain states is a big deal. The major parties go to court all the time to remove lesser known candidates from ballots. ZAP: Winning is impossible if you’re not on the ballot, so it actually is a big deal if you have any desire to actually win. YOU: Ah… so you’re saying 3rd parties aren’t trying to win? EVERYONE ELSE: What the AF are you talking about?!?? YOU: It’s happened before. ZAP: Yep, but precedence doesn’t mean it’s somehow not a big deal. How is this not self-evident? YOU: More moot blather and blunder…

Basic reading skills and comprehension mostly

You seem to be suggesting that 3rd parties… go to court in attempt to… kick themselves off the ballot… in the elections they mean to win? I’m not the driest sandwich in the ice cooler, but I’m fairly certain that ain’t how it’s works. Technically, Trump didn’t have much of a chance in either Colorado or Maine, so even if they do remove him it’s likely moot. The election will likely come down to a few hundred people in a tiny bumfuck nowhere county of a state like Wisconsin simply deciding to stay home that day.

“Russia launched more than 150 missiles and drones at several Ukrainian cities this morning, in what Ukrainian officials are calling one of the largest air attacks of the war. Officials said at least 30 people were killed and 160 wounded, the N.Y. Times reports.”

Quite right. Thanks for correcting

Maine just followed Colorados lead. Their courts have ruled Trump ineligible under the 14th amendment

I’m envisioning the thing you describe as being similar to the examples provided by the article I shared above, below being one such example from that link. My impression is that the thing you saw likely looked similar to this. Is that on target, or am I still not even in the same solar system when envisioning what you encountered?

I’m sorry to hear you’re struggling. Maybe this summary from Axios gets to the heart of the matter more effectively than I have previously. My focus was primarily on that last point, but the surrounding context is also useful.

Google wouldn’t put ChatGPT outputs at the top of their results set. It’s a different tool that is generating what you describe. To turn this into a SAT example: Not all LLMs or AIs are ChatGPT in the same way that not all cars are Fords or Chevys or pickups. While similar, these are distinct in important ways… like ChatGPT on the OpenAI side vs SGE on the Google side. I acknowledge that ChatGPT is now synonymous with LLMs in much the same way that Kleenex are synonymous with facial tissue and and Q-tips are synonymous with cotton swab. Now, whether or not any of this matters or was ever pertinent to this thread is a horse of an entirely different color, but TBH I didn’t expect the exchange to persist for more than one quick post. It happens to the best of us. Don’t let it bother you, please.

Right, more likely it was their PaLM 2 or MUM, under the Search Generative Experience moniker (SGE). My larger point was that ChatGPT is one specific product from one specific company called OpenAI and that it’s extremely unlikely Alphabet/Google are licensing the use of that product put out by a different company for AI generated summaries of their search results. Instead, they’re almost certainly using their own LLM (SGE as earlier noted). https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/10/23717120/google-search-ai-results-generated-experience-io

You asked if the answers here could be applied to any and all silicone grease products you ever encounter anywhere. The answer was, no. The answers here apply ONLY the product you asked about. Period. Don’t extrapolate. If you can’t stand that level of clarity and precision and see it as a rudely slammed door, then you may be too sensitive to be a successful member here and should instead (as I mentioned earlier already) consider relaxing a bit. You seem to be wound pretty tightly.

And we’re once more aligned, even if getting here didn’t maximize efficiency ✌️

No offense intended toward MigL, but there’s no reason to accept that claim as valid.

But you replied to me, and I was indeed talking about the former… the group Zapatos correctly describes. THEY are the ones no longer agreeing to help facilitate elections and polling stations because Trumps crazies threaten them with mob violence and death and intimidation more broadly all for just doing their jobs. It’s no longer safe to perform a fairly basic civic duty. Recall the stories of militias showing up heavily armed in polling station parking lots and following workers home as recently as 3 years ago… all because of the guy about to get elected again.

Nobody here except you has mentioned policy, AI or otherwise. The thread regards whether evolution is an earth only process.

Would you have preferred I used self-indulgent?

Indeed. Also, my comment above about trust being a major challenge moving forward may have been overly broad and definitely wasn’t restricted solely to SFN Not Bard? Or DeepMind?

We don’t. Trust is going to be an even bigger problem moving forward, and this includes text, audio, video, and crosses essentially all modalities.

I should’ve selected a different word to describe my meaning. Like “based on tallies” We’re obviously thinking of different groups and people. This does not apply to most, I can assure you.

This is a bigger question, but it involves counting and recounting when challenged. Though in an “honest” way simply meant above that the vote tallies repeatedly confirmed who won and who did not… if Trump wins, he’ll act like an authoritarian. If Trump loses, he’ll also act like an authoritarian AND claim it was rigged then sick his minions on honest civil servants trying to do serve their country as volunteers during elections. And here in Iowa his support is loyal. He enjoys not just a 54% level,of support, but that support is rabid and unwavering.

A self-professed wiseman recently said (within the last 60 minutes, IINM): Why are you replying if you don't have a point? Are you forgetting that "making a point" is "making a point regarding the topic at hand?" Do you have the ability to not respond to a thread in which you have no actual argument to contribute to?