zkfcfbzr

It’s what triggers the page the article’s about. Take it off and you get a totally different page.

https://www.amazon.com/slc/hub?useAiMode=1

Even though I’m on desktop, I had to follow the article’s mobile directions to find the relevant page. Here is a direct link that may work.

Of course, that’s something no AI will ever be able to take away from you

You could also just add the udm=14 parameter to your search URL, which defaults to the “Web” tab of the results like so - easy enough to configure this to always be present in Firefox, and helps you avoid googling dozens of slurs a day as a bonus

https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=hello+world

I read this whole thread thinking I was on /c/TheOnion, not /c/NotTheOnion, and thought the joke just went over your head.

Wow, it’s really not the Onion. What a headline. I gave the article a brief skim and it seems to be sarcasm-free.

This classic xkcd led me down a long rabbit hole years after reading it that ended in the belief that the universe itself is an abstract instantiation of pure mathematics, and exists only in the sense that any such self-consistent mathematical structure must exist from its own point of view. I won’t get into the details here because it’ll turn into a long incoherent rant, but the general gist is that the idea in the comic should work - but then that the rocks themselves aren’t even necessary: The fact that a universe can exist is enough for it to exist, even if no one ever simulates it. Just like the question “What is the 10^(10^100)th prime number?” exists and has a definite answer, even though nobody will ever and can never calculate it, the answer to “What does a universe, with these initial conditions, and these laws of physics, look like at t = 13.7 billion years?” has an answer too, and it looks like you reading this comment.

Ironically… so did I 🙃 But I hand-verified everything it said, and adjusted the quotes.

• “AI should serve as a scaffold for cognitive construction rather than a substitute.”
• “…the teacher’s role is shifting from knowledge transmission to instructional design and behavioral facilitation… Teachers must develop digital literacy and data fluency while acting as safeguards against over‑automation, ensuring that human judgment and educational values mediate AI adoption.”
• “…while AI offers efficiency and feedback advantages, traditional teaching remains essential for tasks requiring cultural interpretation, discourse depth, and emotional connection. A blended model—AI for repetitive or procedural tasks and teachers for critical discourse—appears most effective.”

This study explicitly does not advocate for replacing teachers with AI, and repeatedly cautions against doing so

Our internal slack channels contain more and more AI-written posts, which makes me think: Thank you for throwing this wall of text on me and n other people. Now, n people need to extract the relevant information, so you are able to “save time” not writing the text yourself. Nice!!!

I think this is one of your best bets as far as getting a real policy change. Bring it up, mention that posts like that may take less time to “write”, but that they’re almost always obnoxiously verbose, contain paragraphs that say essentially nothing, and take far longer to read than a hand-typed message would. The argument that one person is saving time at the expense of dozens (?) of people losing time may carry a lot of weight, especially if these bosses are in and read the same Slack channel.

Past that I’d just let things go as they are, and take every opportunity to point out when AI made a problem, or made a problem more difficult to solve (while downplaying human-created problems).

Why not? FDR had a podcast.

“All issues have only one sensible side and the rest are insensible” is not the takeaway from their comment. Some issues have multiple sensible sides. Other issues might have one sensible sides and several nonsense sides. All their last comment did was provide an example of the latter. They seem to take no stance on what type of issue their first example is.

I can’t read the whole article because it’s paywalled, but the first two paragraphs confirm what everyone already knew: The author purposely led ChatGPT into weird occult topics, then acted scandalized when ChatGPT got weird and occult.

I thought 4chan shut down permanently like 2 months ago?

What’s your earliest dream you can still remember?

Using they/them by default is already a good start - I would be surprised to learn if neopronouns are a thing at all in languages that don’t have gendered pronouns to begin with. they/them is perfectly acceptable to 99+% of people - both cis and LGBT+.

You can just say LGBT or LGBT+. Lots of others are in use but very, very few people will legitimately get mad at you for picking one over any other.

If someone specifically tells you to call them a certain thing, you should call them that thing. Otherwise just stick to they/them.

If someone tells you their sexuality and it is not relevant to you, you have no obligation to ever bring it up again, just as with any form of oversharing.

And as for why some people share these things even though you may personally find it too revealing - that’s just down to personal preference. Different things are important to different people in different ways. Some people might go through their life never giving their gender a single thought. Others might base their life around affirming and fighting for it in various ways. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Everyone has a cause they believe in a lot - for some people, this is that cause. As an “Aero Ace” (a term I had to look up - “aromantic asexual” for those who also haven’t encountered it), you’re probably pretty predisposed to not care about any of this stuff on any significant level.

> Makes thread asking if you should go to the ER

> Literally everyone says to go to the ER

> Doesn’t go to the ER

ok

Yes but it’s not hooked up to cable or the internet. I just use it for the Switch, or I’ll occasionally hook it up as an alternate second monitor to my PC and play a movie on it. It hasn’t been turned on in a few weeks and the last time was to be used as a temporary monitor to set up a new headless PC.

Adding on to the reasons others posted: Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. If you take off a year for him, that puts an immense amount of pressure on him. Pressure to go to the same school as you, pressure to go to school at all, even pressure to stay in the relationship.

It’s always gonna be “They made this gigantic life decision to their detriment for me, so if I change my mind about anything and want to do things differently, like by going to a different school, or not going to a school, or wanting to break up, then I’m a huge ungrateful jerk.”

Putting that kind of pressure on someone isn’t really cool, especially if they’re actively discouraging you from doing so.

Others have covered that there were internal supports, so they were supporting nothing at all. But let’s assume they weren’t.

I’m going for an intentional underestimate - so let’s say there are 10 people in your layer (I think 8 is more likely), then 24 above them, 18 above them, 18 above them, 25 above them, 14 above them, and 2 above them. I think most people would agree those are underestimates for each ring.

That’s 101 people being supported by 10 people. If we take another underestimate that each of those people weighs 100 pounds (45.36 kg) then that’s 10,100 pounds (4581.28 kg) - or 1010 pounds (458.13 kg) supported by each of the 10 people in your ring, completely ignoring the weight of the metal rings visible in the picture. So I think it’s safe to say it was mostly the internal supports at work.