Please, they're ngmi with no fat. The unhealthy frat boy office sounds like a throwback to the early '10s. What woman would work there? They seem poised to crash and burn out.
Historical aristocracy were defined by eating meat, while their subjects ate grain. "Beef" for the Normans, "cows" raised and slaughtered by the Anglo-Saxons.
The difference with many other countries -- I'm Australian -- is that we don't constantly bang on about how glorious our constitution is and how it's the be-all end-all. We just get on with it.
And I wouldn't mind if the American constitution did provide all of these tremendous benefits that everyone bangs on about all the time. That'd be great! But it turns out nobody's really tested that, until now.
The problem with the US Constitution and its religious status in the US is that it contains both fundamental rights and protections for citizens, AND the mundane details of implementing the government.
If you put 500 mock Constitutional conventions together at universities and cities across the country, I would polymarket my 401k that none of them would come up with the same structure we have today in the US. Many republics founded since 1791 have far better democratic structures than the US does. I call the US a semi-democracy because of our Senate, Electoral college, gerrymandered House districts and first-past-the-post voting.
Edit: I got "danged" so here is my response to the person below -
Consider the bill of rights and federal limits separately from the structure of government.
I believe France and Australia have better "democratic infrastructure" and I'm sure they aren't the only ones.
I'm not talking about legally protected rights, I'm talking about the "democratic infrastructure". Voting systems, legislative assembly design, power balance, and so on.
This is moving the goalposts, but I'll entertain this. What does the time / date of the original document have to do with the fact that it's rarely updated and that there's seemingly a constitutional crisis every week for the last year and a bit? No one is arguing here about the strength of rights or the 'grade' of the constitution.
Good car interior design fulfills the functions of: usability; sensibility and brand identity. What's good for a LaFerrari (which has many of the same feature on the wheel as this, but imo, better) is not going to be good on a Hyundai i20 and vice versa.
But BMW is, in general, very good at finding a design language that fits all the right buttons in the right places while feeling like a mid-to-up market car. It's a blend of usability and aesthetics and brand (+model) identity that finds a really good balance across all three categories.
Yeah CS2 was the peak to me, I started using it again maybe a year ago instead of their recent slop. Works even better with modern processors, back in the mid '00s it seemed to lag on everything but the first Mac Pro. And Adobe publicly published serial numbers when they shut down the activation servers, if you can get your hands on a copy of the install discs.
Please consider exposing where the products are actually made.
No business case for me here without country of origin labeling, and on the consumer side I only buy from online retailers that include where their products are made, e.g. officesupply.com
Yeah.. my first instinct was to be more skeptical about the story I was reading, because I hate Meta and people can get in trouble all on their own. But I finished the whole story and between the blue check mark, the insistence that it's real, and the romantic/flirty escalations, I'm less enthusiastic that Meta is in the clear.
Safety and guard rails may be an ongoing development in AI, but at the least, AI needs to more hard-coded w/r/t honesty & clarity about what it is.
> AI needs to more hard-coded w/r/t honesty & clarity about what it is
That precludes the existence of fictional character AIs like Meta is trying to create, does it not? Knowing when to stay in character and when not to seems like a very difficult problem to solve. Should LLM characters in video games be banned, because they might claim to be real?
The article says "Chats begin with disclaimers that information may be inaccurate." and shows a screenshot of the chat bot clearly being labeled as "AI". Exactly how many disclaimers should be necessary? Or is no amount of disclaimers acceptable when the bot itself might claim otherwise?
I wonder if we are at the point right now where AI needs a large bright disclaimer while using it saying "This person is not real and is an AI" (kind of like the big warning on cigarettes and nicotine products). Many of us here would think such a thing is common sense, but there are plenty of people out there who could be convinced by an AI chatbot that they are real
> Knowing when to stay in character and when not to seems like a very difficult problem to solve. Should LLM characters in video games be banned, because they might claim to be real?
In video games? I'm having trouble taking this objection to my suggestion seriously.
Really, your response should be that the video game use case is easier to detect going off track. It's a lot more feasible to detect when Random Peasant #2154 in Skyrim is breaking the fourth wall than a generic chatbot.
The exact same scenario as the article could happen with an NPC in a game if there's no/poor guardrails. An LLM-powered NPC could definitely start insisting that it's a real person that's in love with you, with a real address you should come visit right now, because there's not necessarily an inherent difference in capability when the same chatbot is in a video game context.
Why? They're exactly the same thing, just in a slightly different context. The article is about a fictional character AI, not a generic informational chat bot.
But the difference in context is exactly what matters here no? When you're playing a game, it's very clear you're you're playing a game. When you chatting with a bot in the same interface that you chat with your other friends, that line becomes much blurrier.
There was an obvious disclaimer though, and the chat window was clearly labeled "AI"; it's not like Meta was trying to pass this off as a real person.
So is this just a question of how many warnings need to be in place before users are allowed to chat with fictional characters? Or should this entire use case be banned, as the root commenter seemed to be suggesting?
reply