Because that is certainly news to me and is extremely counterintuitive, considering that the whole idea behind those other things is that they are infused with mystical spirits whereas even the makers of ChatGPT don’t suggest that.
Alternatively instead of mysticism, it may be the belief in the technology being scientifically accurate that including in its ability to scientifically accurately predict the future that may be driving this decision making.
If the latter that raises many questions around us technologists who are working on or with these technologies to do a better job of explaining to the users what the limitations of these technologies are.
These people are going to exist with or without chatgpt. Maybe we should adjust the instruction training to tell people that you can't make worldly predictions from the arrangement of coffee grounds in a cup, other than the quality of the coffee machine and filters, no matter how creative and fantasy-like the users want the model to be.
Some humans are insanely stupid and have no self awareness, they were gonna loose with or without AI. At some point it's natural selection at work.
We can't halt technology progress just because some people are stupid.
Some technologies are allowed to grow because they lower the chance of self violation , but yes, most technology goes back into the lamp.
We don't need nuclear energy to kill ourselves. Over one million people die in car accidents per year worldwide, that's two per minute, and if we still haven't banned cars by now then sure as hell we're not gonna ban LLMs.
[0]: https://twitter.com/colin_fraser/status/1916994188035690904
[1]: https://twitter.com/AISafetyMemes/status/1916889492172013989
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer...
Please don't post shallow dismissals...
ChatGPT is not to blame, they could have gone to a coffee-grounds (human) reader and done the same. If someone can show that human coffee-grounds readers are better than ChatGPT, then there might be a case.
The weird thing is I looked at the posting history of that commenter and it was bland tech comments with no obvious signs of mental health issues.
Which.. sounds like she was either just looking for any excuse to divorce, or she was already divorced, from reality.
There is no story here about ChatGPT, this could have been anything. It could have been the way a dog barked, or hidden messages in the radio, which we wouldn't associate with dogs or radio.
If we are going to attempt any deeper analysis from this, it should be an analysis of what services are in place for people with mental health issues and how people can be empowered to notice signs to help their loved ones.
This sort of self-radicalization will only grow. I've already seen too many cases of "chatgpt told me that I am God" in weird corners of reddit.
I'm already there personally, it just looks like a rip off
Serious relationship crusher: one person sitting on tiktok/reels all day and setting expectations for their own relationship based on that (often staged) content. Really not healthy to constantly have that level of pressure on your head.
There were societally beneficial reasons that divorce used to be hard to achieve, and the fickleness of the inconstant moon was one of them, to reference Juliet.
Otherwise, does a divorce really need anything more than one party willing to get out of the relationship ?
Even assuming anyone is calling it quits on frivolous grounds, it also means that's how much emotional investment there was left in the first place and they were due for a break any day really.
I don't know anything about Greek statutes specifically, but no-fault divorce has actually been a relatively recent development in most legal jurisdictions.
https://www.nomikosodigos.info/en/articles/902-mutual-consen...
_In general_ (I am not a lawyer, I don't know your situation or laws of your area), anything acquired during the marriage is joint property. That can include every paycheck you receive in the span of the marriage, even if the salary is established before marriage, deposited in a personal account, and you were the only one working the entire time.
And that means everything you pay for with that money is also jointly owned, including any mortgage payments using those joint funds. Therefore your (to be ex-)spouse may have stake in any property you own that must be fairly divided. If you bought the house after getting married this may at least be a simple 50/50 split, but if one of you put your whole pre-marriage savings as the down payment you can bet this gets a lot messier.
Speaking of money, if you're making 100K and your spouse makes 50K the union has 150K to sustain a standard of living. After the divorce neither party will be able to keep that same standard of living of course, but one party is more greatly affected than the other. In a "no fault" divorce the outcome must be "fair" to both parties.
But WTF does that even mean? Is it "fair" to have to pay your ex-spouse for being less successful in their career? According to the courts the answer may be, "Yes," especially for any income gained (or lost) during the marriage because, "Pursuing a new job is something you decided _together_, right?"
All that is to say that even if both parties agree that holding onto a failing relationship isn't to anyone's benefit, divorce is something else that either (or both) might not find so agreeable.
When my ex-wife asked for a divorce, I wasn't going to fight over what had already felt by that point a completely one-sided relationship. That helped a lot getting over the emotional shock of the situation, and we did manage a pretty amicable no fault divorce. But it was still was months of debating how much she should get from the two years paid into our 30 year mortgage, and ended with both of us being worse off financially for several more years.
Divorce is not just a break up that you state your waning interest and walk away from; it is a complicated legal process that will force some uncomfortable conversations about things you probably would have never imagined being an issue while you believed the relationship was going well.
Which is not to say you shouldn't do it if your relationship is bad, but if you think your relationship is bound to end on some frivolous grounds you either shouldn't get married in the first place or find relationship help immediately.
Imagine being in a non-married relationship and taking a mortgage for a house you'll both live in and potentially both pay. You'll still need to have these uncomfortable discussions, probably upfront and not when it goes south. Same if you have a kid, if one quits their job to take care of that kid (or take care of the other if needed).
A marriage will package a defined set of rules to apply to these situations, where not being married will force a lot of case-by-case examination, with probably one end of the relation getting shafted. Some countries (Japan is one, there must be others) have a "not married but could as well be" status for these kind of situations.
What I'm saying is, being in a marriage or not is akin to having a contract or not. It doesn't change what you're supposed to be doing, it will only help to frame the discussion in the dire times. By the same token, breaking up a long lasting relationship shouldn't be about whether the paperwork is a PITA or not, not being in a marriage doesn't make it OK to just screw the other side for instance, hopefully you'll still have the uncomfortable discussions either way.
Both parties must come to an agreement about how to break the contract, including conditions they may or may not have realized they agreed to, otherwise the must demonstrate how one has already broken the contract.
If you want a relationship you can just walk away from, or believe your parter does, you should not get married.
So now, "" it's some of third Popper world frozen unequivalently at a past time.. [slope shaped..] - since then, * IT * self-repeat and decide usurping about us already in such a way.. .
btw elsewhere now it happen [flagged, overtake]. The next ? (.) (modus operandi?) .?
croes•9mo ago
People blindly belueving a machine
foxyv•9mo ago
giraffe_lady•9mo ago
foxyv•9mo ago
John Lang did a little video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfD_2fVqEMk
potato3732842•9mo ago
ashoeafoot•9mo ago
archerx•9mo ago
imtringued•9mo ago
gwern summarizes it appropriately: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14867898
dragonwriter•9mo ago
The key claims about the film that gwern's argument builds on are false, though. E.g.: "in a setting where there are no genuine consequences to any of this, no genetic engineering, no embryo selection"
It is a rather central part of the story that genetic engineering and embryo selection are routine, and the principal protagonist is noteworthy because his parents did not use such techniques, and he was instead a "faith baby".
gwern is clearly criticizing something, but it's not what is actually portrayed in the film Gattaca.
gwern•9mo ago
(My headcanon is that the esoteric story of _Gattaca_ is that none of the supposed embryo selection or valid/invalid screens exist at all, any embryo selection is just ordinary IVF quality control for aneuploidy etc, there is only cheap universal sequencing developed by a totalitarian police state like the CCP (see: Zero COVID testing), and the classification exists to manufacture distinctions and divide families and punish/reward elite supporters; the Freemans were some lower 'wavering' class, grouped with religious minorities, as indicated by their dissenting 'natural' birth, and so they earned a valid vs invalid split within their family. It makes more sense than the actual story, anyway.)
* I've remarked elsewhere that _Gattaca_ is an example of how movies with a message tend to fail by loading the dice too heavily for one side, removing any 'moral dilemma', and it is no exception: we never see any evidence that Vincent is doing anything wrong or that he shouldn't go on the space mission. In fact, given his methodical penetration, high competency, motivation, and extraordinary success at getting into the mission, he shows that he should be selected for his moxie and chutzpah. So what _Gattaca_ should have done was to make the ending Vincent suddenly clutching his heart from the shock, and fade to black.
netsharc•9mo ago
ty6853•9mo ago
graemep•9mo ago
> According to reports, the woman asked ChatGPT to interpret the coffee grounds left in her cup — in a lighthearted attempt to mimic traditional fortune-telling
This could just has easily happened with a human fortune teller.
kees99•9mo ago
Same as with fortune cookie quips, any "prediction" will be something that sounds deep and intriguing, but always vague enough to be non-falsifiable.
Otherwise, client will come back and confront fortune teller about it. And human one knows it well enough to avoid making an unnecessary headache for themselves.
rpdillon•9mo ago
> He also noted that this wasn’t the first time she had fallen into irrational beliefs. He claimed that in the past, his wife had visited an astrologer, and it took her a year to accept that nothing they said came true.
I don't think the problem here is with AI.
croes•9mo ago
amanaplanacanal•9mo ago
croes•9mo ago
croes•9mo ago