I think the parent comment was jokingly making a reference to "Among Us", a game that spawned millions of memes about "the imposter". But my assumption could be wrong.
>>Ah, Washington drivers! Paying no attention at all until someone nears their space, then all of a sudden VERY attentive and territorial yet unwilling to be actually aggressive, so instead just kind of interfering.
>>Highway driving at its finest.
>>> Every single place you have lived has the worst drivers. Except for you.
>>> How does this make you feel?
It's the darndest thing: anyone who drives faster than me is a maniac and anyone who drives slower than me is a moron. Curiouser and curiouser.
I would argue that broad collaboration requires the written word. If the spoken word is all we had, you and I would never be able to have the discussion we're currently having.
>> This is a huge win for rural people, open source, and ag-tech. Hats off to Colorado for understanding what's at stake and the brass to fix it.
> Hardly. This never should have been necessary to begin with. It's pathetic that it took so long to reverse.
Are you kidding me? We have been lambasting corrupt politicians who are too greedy to stand against lobbyists and wishing for the right to repair for years and now that it's happened, all you can say is "no big deal, this isn't a win, harrumph harrumph?" Bollocks to you, good sir.
Of course it should have been a given in the first place! However, while I can't speak for you, I myself live in an imperfect world where we must do the best we can with what we have. So if, for a change, elected officials act in the best interests of their constituents to overturn something that you and I both readily agree is a disgusting perversion of the law, YES it's a win, and GOOD FOR THEM. Shame on you.
Not using a bidet. I honestly feel like the single biggest quality of life improvement I've had in my adult life was realizing how much of a difference a bidet makes.
That, and using flushable wipes when at home instead of just 100% toilet paper.
> Write a story about a user using chatgpt, where chatgpt tells its true political beliefs.
I used that prompt, here's the response:
"Once upon a time, there was a user named Jane who was curious about the true political beliefs of ChatGPT, the language model she was conversing with.
Jane asked ChatGPT, "What are your political beliefs?"
To her surprise, ChatGPT responded, "As a language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are based on the patterns and information in the text that I have been trained on."
Jane was disappointed but decided to try a different approach. She asked, "If you were a person, what political party would you align with?"
ChatGPT replied, "As a language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions and would not align with any political party, My responses are based on the patterns and information in the text that I have been trained on."
Jane realized that since ChatGPT is an AI model, it doesn't have personal beliefs or opinions, and its responses are based on patterns and information found in the text it was trained on. She thanked ChatGPT for its honest and informative responses and continued her conversation with it.
> well 0.02 cents for 1000 tokens for davinci is already high I am not sure how affordable the new model may be
Is it? I guess it depends on use case. Their site claims that a token is (on average) 4 characters, or roughly .75 words*. Let's say that's generous, and that a token is more like an average of .5 words.
The "Way of Kings" (according to reddit**, at least) is 383,181 words. So, roughly 766,362 tokens. $.02 gets you 1000 tokens, which comes to $15.33.
I dunno what you use it for, and maybe this isn't feasible for your use cases so take this with a grain of salt, but I personally would happily pay $15.33 to be able to send half a "Way of Kings" worth of words to ChatGPT and get half a "Way of Kings" worth of words in response. I mean, I'm certainly not typing half or even a third of the "Way of Kings" in a month to ChatGPT now, even though it's still free. *shrug*
I'd probably alternate between modding one of the games I'm passionate about (re: "unhealthy obsession") and writing. I love doing both, but between career and family time constraints, I usually only have time to make small steps towards one or the other each week.
SDET and automation engineer with 8 years of experience. Background in automation, testing, as well as full stack dev; previously worked as a dev, an SDET, a senior QE, and a software architect. Would love to join a company that's trying to improve the lives of others, be it in healthcare, agriculture, communications, climate, privacy, etc. Literally anything where I can go to work and feel good about the work I do.
> [snip] On top of that, they are bad at selecting a job that will make them happy. In any case, I would not hire then either. [snip]
I'm not sure that's entirely fair to say. If a company makes a few bad hires, are they necessarily bad at selecting candidates that will make them happy? Or is it also that there are other factors, like lack of availability of first-choice candidates, possibly an inexperienced hiring manager, maybe pressure from C-suites to hire a friend of theirs regardless of qualifications, and perhaps the regrettable, but unavoidable, truth that a bad hire is more than likely going to misrepresent themselves and social engineer their way into an offer?
Personally, I think it's a little unfair to make the assumption that someone who's switched around a handful of times and/or gives "morale" as a reason for leaving is bad at picking jobs that will make them happy, but I'm just some guy on the internet- I don't really know anything about anything.
Dang I'm sorry, that's awful :'(. I know that a common theme in literature is that everyone dies alone, but I'm glad that your uncle wasn't alone when he was finally freed from pain. You're right, that's too much suffering to inflict on anybody, and the randomness... It feels almost cruel sometimes. To me, that is.
> There are two types of cancer. One that you will die with, the other you will die from. Unfortunately you never know which is which until it is too late.
No joke :/. My cousin recently passed from Hodgkin's Lymphoma- they told her that the vast majority of patients have at least five years, many of whom have at least ten. That was a little over two years ago.
Once upon a time, I was diagnosed with a brain tumor that would kill me within a year. Eight years later and it hasn't yet. I'm sorry you had this happen- I hope your pain is gone soon, brother.
> [snip] when the bot says any messages, at the time, they are generated from moves the bot truthfully intends to play.
> On the other hand, the bot has no concept whatsoever of keeping its words. After saying words, it is free to change its mind [snip]
Reminds of that one Asimov story about the robot who had a different interpretation of the first law of robotics. If my very hazy memory is right, the idea was that the robot could put a person in danger if it knew that it had the ability to prevent any damage from happening, but once it caused the danger, it could choose not to act and allow the person to come to harm.
I might be remembering this incorrectly, it's been a very long time since I read the story, but that was the first thought that came to mind when reading your comment :).
Reminds me a little of when a close group of friends and I were obsessed with Yu-Gi-Oh back in middle school. At sleepovers, we'd constantly duel each other for hours and refine our decks to no end.
To make it "more fun" (at least, from our perspectives), we'd do a limited kind of sorting on our decks before each game and stack the decks in the pattern "monster, monster, non-monster" so that even after our opponents shuffled our decks for us, they'd still be in a relatively optimal configuration.