I subscribed to releases! Good work so far!

I don’t understand. Surely they have foods that are vegan besides bread and water, right? Like, some vegetable being served or something?

I have a weak and high level grasp of how LLMs work, but what you say in this comment doesn’t seem correct. No one is really sure why LLMs sometimes make things up, and a corollary of that is that no one knows how difficult (up to impossible) it might be to fix it.

Is this really where you are talking about?

One of us doesn’t know what socialism is, and I want to be very clear here that it might be me.

I am under the impression that socialism is about the government owning industry, not having a robust social safety net. Though, from that link you provided, Norway happens to be an exception in the Nordic model, and actualy does own some industries. So I guess we’re both right? haha

It’s funny because I almost left that out.

I’m pretty sure that Norway is capitalistic, just like America. The difference is mostly a matter of degree, not category. I definitely could be mistaken, though.

Well, I really doubt anyone is being serious in this entire thread but the parameters were simply that it was something one person could do (inferred), and that it wasn’t illegal.

I think my solution meets those requirements.

At the risk of making the OP’s problem worse: https://www.visittromso.no/ for the curious.

Considering some of their comments, doesn’t seem likely to be right wing. Most of their complaints are anti-capitalism in nature. The rest of your reply is certainly plausible.

A quick scan of the OP’s history suggests that they live in Norway, but I don’t know if that tells us anything about what a “small town” is. Nor do we know why the town is popular. It’s at least plausible that tourists stay in that small town because there are so many places to stay, and it’s close to some area that is the real reason the tourists are there. (like a mountain to ski on, or something).

I doubt the OP expects a real answer, because they didn’t provide enough information.

Run for mayor (or local equivalent), win, and then push for/implement a bunch of rules that make the town inhospitable to tourists.

I assume the tourism brings in money to the local community, yeah? Cutting off that income will probably mean you won’t be able to win the next subsequent election, so act fast.

with easily accessible technology people don’t retain the skills that are supplemented by that technology.

Isn’t this the point of technology?

We don’t even know how they arrive at the output they arrive at, and it takes lengthy research just to find out how, say, an LLM picks the next word in an arbitrarily chosen sentence fragment. And that’s for the simpler models! (Like GPT-2)

That’s pretty crazy when you think about it.

So, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest they’re just “a new type of app”. I’m not sure what “revolutionary” really means but the technology behind the generative AI is certainly going to be applied elsewhere.

It’s anecdotal but I have found that the people who are “skeptical” (to use your word) about generative AI often turn out to be financially dependent on something that generative AI can do.

That it to say, they’re worried it will replace them at their job and so they very much want it to fail.

Don’t even get me started. Go ahead and ask any of the admins which copyright laws they’re so terrified of. They’ll tell you US laws.

My wife had a guy start at her company the same day she did, but he got fired that same day because for reasons no one understands he decided it would be wise to make his Teams (or whatever they used. Slack? I can’t remember) profile picture a meme that said “Epstein didn’t kill himself” or something to that effect.

It was a six figure software engineering job, too. I cannot imagine losing a job like that for such a silly, self-inflicted reason.

No, not exactly. It’s more like “a service isn’t held responsible for what users do with it”. If an analogy is helpful, imagine charging the phone company because two people arranged a bank robbery over the phone. That’s what section 230 prevents. (It’s more complicated than I’m making it but for our purposes the complications aren’t pertinent.)

LW was in no danger at all, assuming that if they were contacted about copyright violations, they react in a sane way, by taking down the offending content.

The whole

Well the radio silence on it sure seems like they’re circling the wagons to protect an admin that clearly isn’t emotionally mature enough to be in such a position.

Please don’t misunderstand. Even the government (US, in my case) doesn’t have unrestricted free speech, and that’s a good thing. We agree here. I even would say that the line as it is currently set in America is “too broad” and that we need to tweak it down a bit. We fail to acknowledge that stochastic terrorism is a thing, in our speech laws, and it essentially makes it completely legal to do as long as you remain sufficiently coded/vague.

If you don’t mind humoring me one more time, feel free to weigh in on my questions, again, but assuming the quotes were both made in context; that is to say, JFK quote for a scenario where peaceful revolution was being restricted, and four boxes (which, in my mind, comes a little too close to the line) in a scenario where people were losing their ability to weigh in on their government actions via speech, voting, and juries.

I can’t seem to articulate, even to myself, why the JFK quote is generally (in my mind) considered non-violent, but the four boxes one (again, in my mind) is more threatening. I’m hoping random internet polling will lead to some insight. haha