Remember Microsoft Edge? Remember Microsoft Teams? Remember Dev Home? Remember Copilot? Yeah it's the same thing everytime.

How are corporations not people?

Who runs them if not people?

Corporations are made of people, they aren't people, which is quite different.

Why it's different?

Decisions are still made by people. Even if Excel is used to calculate the decision trajectory, even if the trajectory is enforced by some law inside the corporation, it's still people who decide that they continue following the road, and it's still people who implement the decision.

Because when corporations are seen as people, it is anthropomorphism.

If you don't intend to answer, why comment at all?

Some people have English comprehension problems, thus my previous answer.

So you're just a troll, meh.

I cannot help when people cannot understand basic English expressions.

Yep, I can't remember when was the last time I've visited a SEO optimized site but I still had the bitter taste that I felt when I last visited it:

- searches for "How to do XYZ" and click one of the site

- "what is xyz"

- "why xyz matters"

- "preparations before xyz"

- "what you might encounter when xyz"

Sounds reasonable and in theory should be useful, but the actual useful info are only stuffed in 1-2 lines of multi paragraphs on tons of sections that I don't care about.

That's because AI is still in the honeymoon phase, unless it's a paying service, at some point the summary will start to have context relevant ads.

Also, I felt like in long term that's going to kill off the good faith of all those smaller sites that are actually good, while the bigger ones still produce subpar contents.

Curious, currently how is the use of AI being detected from papers?

From the article I saw that they're using "excess words" as an indicator, is that a reliable method?

Also, is it possible that it's just autocorrect that added "excess words" when fixing grammar? If that's the case, should that be considered as "use of AI"?

Bias against the non-native English users is staggering.

_According to the study, all seven AI detectors unanimously identified 18 of the 91 TOEFL student essays (19%) as AI-generated and a remarkable 89 of the 91 TOEFL essays (97%) were flagged by at least one of the detectors._

These papers were not written with use of AI.

https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-detectors-biased-against-no...

This is from 2023. Is there an updated source proving that detectors in 2025 are also not accurate?

If you force yourself to communicate in certain language, you more or less will be able to communicate with it sooner or later.

(Provided that you have basic understanding to the language)

On Arch if I'm not mistaken, you can export your archinstall configuration to be used at other machines although it's not fully "declarative" but I believe it sort of works for certain use cases

Buddhism encourages non-violence, it's not strictly enforced, but there will be consequences when they die.

Then again, just because some people's doctrine does not encourage violence doesn't give others a free ticket to bash on them for doing so.

Again, this is incorrect. I have cited direct sources of Buddhist scripture that unequivocally denounce and condemn violence in all forms. Encourages is far too weak a word to describe Buddhist scripture on the topic, which uses strong language in every case. Prohibitions against violence are enforced by the Vinaya, which is the code of ethics all monks must follow.

I've noticed you repeatedly in this thread treating Buddhism with a kind of pure scripturalism and disregard for the actual expressions of faith by the community professing it that resembles the (relatively novel even within Christianity) approach of Fundamentalist Protestantism to the Christian Bible, and I wonder if there is any basis with Buddhism itself for this or...

Mahayana and Vajrayana are both branches of Buddhism that venerate texts most scholars of repute hold in very dubious regard. They came long after, and are stylistically distinct from, the Pali Canon.

> A. K. Warder notes that the Mahāyāna Sūtras are highly unlikely to have come from the teachings of the historical Buddha, since the language and style of every extant Mahāyāna Sūtra is comparable more to later Indian texts than to texts that could have circulated in the Buddha's putative lifetime. Warder also notes that the Tibetan historian Tāranātha (1575–1634) proclaimed that after the Buddha taught the sutras, they disappeared from the human world and circulated only in the world of the nagas. In Warder's view, "this is as good as an admission that no such texts existed until the 2nd century A.D."

I certainly do regard the actual expressions of faith by its many communities, but not all are correct, and one need look no further than to compare the actual root texts to the monstrous actions of people determined to burn the world down in its name. You are invited to do so for yourself, as the Buddha has always done, and compare the words to the actions of those who claim lineage.

> na haneyya na ghātaye

There is the Pali in a handful of words. Now you have the tools to discern for yourself: what does it tell us to do or not to do?

Not him, but you can look up what Theravada is.

Are you claiming that the sola scriptura-like approach is actually an element of Theravada Buddhism or that the positions being defended with that approach are actually the distinct tenants of Theravada Buddhism? (I mean, I get from the repeated references to the Pali Canon that the arguments—framed as general to Buddhism—are likely Theravada-focused, but that doesn't really answer the question I was asking.)

Yes, it goes as far as some Theravada traditions not giving much attention to Theravada's own commentary corpus, which was added centuries after the Buddha's life.

The "let's go back to origins" approach is not a Western invention, the existence of Chan/Zen proves it quite clearly.

The whole point of becoming a monk is to try to have control over their desires, exercise mental discipline like how Buddha does.

If one is already able to achieve all of that they won't even need to become a monk, because they've already achieved what they wanted to.

When people are doing something "in the name of religion", it's possible that they are just trying to justify their actions to achieve certain goals

Also true when people are doing something for any other reason, though. People providing a self-aware and appropriately cynical justification for their actions is the extremely rare exception. The rule is contorted rationalization for selfish nonsense.

This is true even beyond just religion. Stated and actual goals can and not too rarely do differ, as one cannot see into people's minds (for now).

From my totally biased understanding, truth is what groups of people agreed on, people believe what they believed in. Even though people agreed on the same thing, each of them would have different interpretation of the truth that they believe it, with certain levels of overlap.

> truth is what groups of people agreed on

I would call this "consensus" or "mainstream knowledge", or something like that.

Truth exists regardless of whether people agree on it. I suppose about some things we cannot ever claim we know "the truth", though in common speech we agree to call widely held beliefs as the truth, for simplicity's sake.

Ah yes, that exactly

> truth is what groups of people agreed on

But just because a bunch of people agreed on it, doesn't mean it's "absolute truth", like how doctors for a long time didn't want to wash their hand, because they didn't believe in germ theory. Countless of examples where we've ("scientists" and/or humans) all agreed on something, which later turned out not to be true.

And believing that truth is just "consensus between people" would lead to people never trying to go against that, even if their truth seems more truthy than the "established" truth.

Yes, it's truth as in "consensus" but not the absolute truth, and I don't think we are going to reach the absolute truth anytime soon.

You're assuming that everyone will agree on the truth just because it's the "truth", but why do you think we no longer believe that earth is the center of world?

There will always people who questions the truth and did research and study about it, discovers new observations of the subject and replace the existing if it convinced the majority.

It's question that lead us closer to the truth (occasionally it does the opposite). That's why we made new discoveries, and that's why you are here questioning about the truthfulness of truth.

I have a different take. The more that people cannot disagree with X, the more X is truth. This is separate from fiction and intentional misrepresentation of events.

When you directly witness something happening with a few others, you can't disagree about what you saw, so that is high truth (assuming no intentional mispresentation). Of course sometimes even here you may not all have seen the same exact thing at the same exact time.

Video of events tends to be up there as well. Of course I mean raw, unedited video and not edited clip-montages of stuff interspersed with commentary, opinions, etc. Even raw video is not guaranteed to be high or complete truth if it's omitting other things that were part of an event.

When we get into things like testimony, opinions, second-hand accounts, anecdotes, and commentary, then we're in the world of low truth (and sometimes its complete absence) and a high chance of deception. Hence the need for heuristics, trust, narrative detection, asking who benefits, etc. Which may not arrive at any truth other than the direction someone is wanting you to go.

Science is interesting because it's reports are a form of testimony, but specifically extending an invitation to be reproduced so it can be directly witnessed again. This alone makes it more trustworthy than things like "here's the testimony of a dead person we can't even talk to anymore" or "everyone seems to accept X so X must be true" - and that last one is dangerous today because many people use social media as a proxy for "everyone" but it's very easily manipulated.