May want to give that four years or so. It’s just going to be predictable, depressing slog with no avenue to affect change between here and there

Ok fair, that misinterpretation is on me.

I feel like both of us have lost our minds with what a dumb thread this is.

I’m allowed to strongly associate two groups of people who I’ve found to have similar patterns of behavior. You’re allowed to dislike me for having an opinion you dislike.

Or you’re a real AI whom I’ve offended and for which I apologize. That’d be a fun end to this nonsense.

You imply I am a grifter? Quite the stretch. I’m curious how you got there. A vague reference to my profession brands me as such?

Sure. And the right thing is not tolerating grifters.

Yup. I’m ok with having a negative, poorly backed opinion of grifters who’s lies fall in to my area of professional expertise. And if one of those grifters get butthurt about it, all the better. If they didn’t want to be offended by people not liking their bullshit, they shouldn’t be active detriments to society at large.

Wasn’t an argument. It was an anecdote. I feel there is insubstantial difference in character and behavior between crypto bros and ai hype people. Given that we are discussing large populations, overlap will occur. It has been my experience that they are generally the same people.

Thus “I feel” instead of some kind of demographic analysis. If you are offended by this, maybe don’t associate with willfully uninformed grifters and their victims.

And if I use “I feel” instead of a more concrete assertion, it’s clear from context that I don’t have any data to back that up off hand and am implicitly making a wider assertion that the people they hyped crypto are the same or akin to the people who are hyping AI.

Feel free to disprove me.

I was using cryptobros as a proxy for the people that hyped AI. I feel like that venn diagram is a circle.

It’s not completely useless, it just not the silver fucking bullet that the cryptobros promised it was. It can do a lot of cool shit, but we keep trying to make it do things it’s really not equipped to do.

To pile on: They don’t filter anything, or search anything. They are clever parrots made up of huge streaks of linear algebra. It has no understanding of anything nor interest in doing more than generating sentences that look right given a prompt. Even saying that it has ‘no understanding’ or ‘interest’ is giving it too much credit, implying intelligence or decision making capability. It’s just ridiculously vast math.

Upvote for use of real interrobang alone.

I’ve no significant opinion of India beyond anti-Modi, and that’s a product of John Oliver. Most of my engineering team are Indian and some I like, some I tolerate. And a fear of Indian traffic by reputation alone.

But you could swap “American” with “Indian” in that first paragraph, change nothing else, and it be largely (if not entirely) accurate.

My grandmother was the county coroner for a while. She was a pharmacist professionally. In those places, it’s more “give it a quick kick and say they’re dead” (she never did that) more than anything else. She only declared death, not attribute cause to my knowledge.

The other part of it is that, for whatever reason, in my county the only higher arresting authority than the sheriff was the coroner. It was her job to serve him with papers when he was being sued and, not that it ever came up, arrest him when it needed done.

Weird system.

That seems like a perfectly normal phrase…

The ones near me don’t, but it’s still there. Just push buttons till it’s quiet. For mine, it’s the fourth button.

Did you have my professor for intro to C? This guy was well known for failing people for plagiarism on projects where the task was basically “hello world”. And he disallowed using if/else for the first month of class.

I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you’re uninformed about how things work.

Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?

Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He’s so damned slippery I’m not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he’s in jail.

But yeah, they did make up their minds there.

Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they’ve found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he’s guilty, but that it’s worth looking into.

Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn’t exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes (“Only stupid people pay taxes” comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.