Chris2048

This is a discussion forum, why gatekeep whatever it is you want to say.

and yet you quote me as if to make a point. Feel free to duck out.

The parent doesn't mention capitalism..

> doesn't solve the fact that many people want to play games with others online

What does this have to do with this? I'm not sure you understand the point being made..

> So you immediately assume that ChatGPT is falling for those fake stats and using it in chat responses or analysis input? Where's the proof for that?

In TFA it says:

"Around 72,000 of them came from ChatGPT-User. That is the agent ChatGPT uses to open a page in real time while answering someone."

> You also saw your fake stats in a paper and a few other sites and assumed ChatGPT put it there?

I don't think TFA actually says this.

> Remember Viagra?

What.. does Viagra have to do with this?

> Your "logical conclusion" ignores that

Why did you have to phrase it like this, instead of just bringing up your own counterpoint?

Also, I'd see the concern here as where the code runs: if there is a dependency on the server to pull down code/assets, but it still runs it locally, then there is still an opportunity to pirate it locally - So this isn't a point about cloud-dependence, but AI/piracy specifically pushing execution to the server side.

The reason it got "lost":

> the similarity to cunt (and particularly homophony with cunny) led through taboo avoidance both to the word's displacement in the main by rabbit and bunny

The line in the sand is that the quoted example is not a reasonable distinction, which you agreed with.

Please address the second paragraph, no analogy there.

> You may as well have said "it's kinda like Goldilocks and the three bears."

That story is used allegorically all the time, rarely involving talking bears, so I'm not what you mean.

> You can only stretch anologies so far

agreed, but now we have a baseline before digging into them grey areas, and I know you're not completely crazy by rejecting this example (such people exist).

Where do you think the line exists in this situation? If a software is unusable, to the point that it's difficult to imagine the creator (or its proponents) actually tried using it - Can that be dismissed as simply incomplete, or buggy?

> No it's not.

Why not? A minesweeper program is also a buggy/incomplete photoshop implementation if you stretch the semantics enough.

At some point mere hype becomes outright misrepresentation, and I'm hearing the same weasely language here as I did from the blockchain scammer crowd.

How do you determine what is "unrelated" versus "that same tradition".

By your phrasing, drug laws are related, because they pertain to body autonomy.

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;

Anything that is illegal and requires use of your body is a restriction in the use of your body.

Purchasing, selling and muling drugs is a voluntary trade, and also illegal.

> limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money)

like how murder laws limit what women did with their bodies (strangling people to death, with their hands)