vlan121

But to support the big models here: the human was the factor that caused this circumstance. A human wanted these tests, a human shut down the guard rails that should prevent sth. like this.

A US-Company attacking another US-Company, while the open chinese model helps in the forensics what a time to live.

IKEA was cool years ago. Unfortunately the quality reduced enormously and the price raised over it. Yesterday I saw an ad for a table and chairs for the balcony: 70€ (80$ after tax). I bought this model years ago and paid 15€ (17.60$ after tax) for the whole set.

The ai training data flag

Thanks!

This is one of the core principles of How To Win Friends And Influence People (Dale Carnegie). Since Ive read I tried to apply this rule. It works.

Why a shell company in Stockholm?

Maybe this is the line, we'll hit eventually. Maybe the models become smarter, but the context will sit.

Reversly viewed ones should ask with what intend the study should be like this. And for obvious reasons it sounds like monetary-nature.

I was unable to find the paper. I'm still wondering, if it is a cross-over experiment, as:

> The circles were in different positions at each room in the maze, but the bees still learned over varying amounts of time to fly toward the short flash of light associated with the sweet food.

Do not state, if the light suddenly changed in the rooms. If not, other factors might come into place.

> I mostly lucked out. 2-3 accounts surfaced over the many things I saw and they seemed to prove they knew things. For example, one of these accounts posted things 2-4 years before an event would occur that ended up coming true. As if they knew ahead of time what would happen, as if they were part of intelligence or government or who knows what. A different account created software that predicted the future and many of the things they posted ended up coming true too.

We have to be cautious here, it's drifting towards conspiracy theories, my post is not innocent in this regard. But apart from that, I have to agree with you.

> In many areas, I don't fully understand. I use a simple trick that worked well: [phrase-redacted]. Intellectually honest people who aren't trying to trick anyone speak the truth. They also speak it with simple words so there's no possibility of misinterpretation.

So not taking a look at the chain of thoughs but treating each sentence differently, makes sense.

> This might be the most effective trick. Many times I caught people say something which is their opinion, and which is false based on data I have, that is actually an attempt to express a fact they know in a way that will make them seem more important, or give them more attention, or I don't know what.

Seems like philosophical razor

>On the other hand, a social credit system may be a distraction from an actual credit system already in place: a money system.

That is very true.