They do refer to Claude as a model and not a person, at least. If you squint, you could stretch it to like an asynchronous consciousness - there’s inputs like the prompts and training and outputs like the model-assisted training texts which suggest will be self-referential.
Depends whether you see an updated model as a new thing or a change to itself, Ship of Theseus-style.
The article's bent was that it's the un-pedigreed using AI to allow them to compete with formally trained grads, and not, you know, the Mk1 unit everyone shipped with.
>artificial intelligence tools got better at performing tasks that once required formal training.
Or it's a distraction from the message. If your argument is strong, I can try to change the conversation to you by finding some artifact and magnifying it through some creative interpretations - imply negative associations to X, suggest your references aren't allowed because of Y, or try get the group to attack ad hominem until it chokes out everything else.
We've collectively gotten pretty good at this in the last decade.
Not all norms and ideals are compatible globally. If a hypothetical group uses your ideals against you, do you remain bound by them out of consistency, or break from your rules to address the perceived threat?
Personally I think if you argue for free speech above all you should stick to free speech above all. What's the point in having morals if you're going to compromise on them when a charitable organisation half way around the world makes you scared?
To be clear, to this end is the exact reason why I dont believe in free speech above all, all people should have a right to expression, but you also have a responsibility for the consequences of that expression. I tried to get that across above, Im actually fine with both HateAid and what the US do / have done, I am neither American nor in the EU. but free speech absolutionists pretending that the US is in anyway protecting free speech is laughable. Look at Minnesota right now.
> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
Chiefly, the subjective definition beyond "speech someone hates". Social media is trending towards establishing lockstep opinions and smushing disagreement. Using such labels is effective in cowing dissent.
It's tempting to objectively label something as bad through a subjective process, as appeals to authority are powerful. Your point about diverging lines being drawn highlights the importance of skepticism of these appeals.
In general, I'm surprised by the vitriol in these comments.
I think your claim proves too much:
If you pick a different religion (my siblings and their kids are religious - not Jewish), you could similarly say "even though they're happy being raised in their religion, they have no way to know whether they would prefer to have been raised agnostic/atheist" (or some other religion)
Of course that's true for many decisions parents make on behalf of their children.
I am curious if folks in this thread are similarly incensed by young children having their ears pierced? It's obviously different, but it still seems like a cultural decision.
To my knowledge (having only learned about it incidentally during the pregnancy/birthing process since it wasn't a relevant decision) it didn't seem like circumcision had strong medical recommendations for or against
You can stretch it to religion, if you consider being inculcated in a certain religion a 1-way door.
Circumcision removes nerve endings and results in an exposed glans, which thickens the skin and further dulls its nerve endings. This is a 1-way reduction in sexual capacity, which the child doesn't have any say in. Comparing it to ear piercing isn't the same, which, while cartilage doesn't heal easily, there's no sexual sensation interaction and leaving piercings empty tends to reverse them over time.
The linked study doesn’t measure sexual stimulation, only touch, pain, and heat. The study also found that the foreskin was more sensitive than any other area, which supports the prior commenter’s point.
As far as I can tell it addresses the mechanisms proposed by the parent comment.
If the claim is specifically about reduced stimulation during sex, that's a different claim. I'm simply saying the initial explanation seemed like bullshit
In general, if a claim is easy to verify, someone has verified it, but the US is also somewhat prudish so making the research more explicit might make it less likely that the research happens in the states. If there is an existing study that says this claim is correct, feel free to link it.
Respectfully, this is a case where a lack of "field experience" combines with asking AI about peepees, and it gets weird after that.
Like another commenter said, this is a small (62) group of men tested for stimuli that don't appear to resemble sex.
To be blunt, I think it is apparent to those with experience that uncircumcised penises are significantly more sensitive than circumcised ones. If you wanted to test this - get a big sample size and simulate the 3 common types of copulation in a standard way (lol).
Stuff breaks all the time, you just need a bigger sample size.
Overseeing IT admins for corp fleets is part of my gig, and from my experience, we get malfunctioning TPMs on anything consumer - Lenovo, Dell, HP, whatever. I think the incidence is some fraction of a percent, but get a few thousand devices and the chance of eventually experiencing it is high, very high. I can't imagine a vTPM being perfect either, since there isn't a hypervisor out there someone hasn't screwed up a VM on.
Many, many more devices here... And good/typical enterprise level hardware... And failing TPMs are just something that happen. It's pretty expected these days. And on Windows when it causes a loss of certificates, it's actually a good bit more of a pain than just a dying disk or display or something, because it's not immediately obvious what's wrong, it just doesn't talk to the network properly anymore, or so.
I'm not surprised by Tailscale's change here. It's a good move.
The issue could be a bug in the host OS not in the VM. I had a Windows update that broke VMs when the guest OS was Windows running in real-time mode. This was the only issue and if I didn't run real-time VMs I would have never known. The only resolution was to reinstall Windows.
Health data could also be used now to spot trends and problems that an assembly-line health system doesn't optimize for.
I think in the US, you get out of the system what you put into it - specific queries and concerns with as much background as you can muster for your doctor. You have to own the initiative to get your reactive medical provider to help.
Using your own AI subscription to analyze your own data seems like immense ROI versus a distant theoretical risk.
Depends whether you see an updated model as a new thing or a change to itself, Ship of Theseus-style.
reply