Good news is they have to buy it

r/joerogan

Just want to mention Pierogi as well in case anyone reading this haven’t heard of these people and want to check out channels where they troll these call centers

Where can he go? Haven’t we turned every platform into profit seeking machines. Any places that could have supported this type of media got chocked out long ago.

And hobbyist

For me its when I see a driver who is driving unexpectedly. Like speeding in areas with kids. Or driving at high speeds anywhere.

roadways are build for a certain speed so we can anticipate oncoming traffic. Like lights are programmed to allow a block of traffic to go then a break so cars turning can complete the turn between the break. if some asshole fucks it up by hammering the gas they will end up in between the blocks making it harder for all the cars to complete their turn since they now have to wait.

Someone said ‘reading intention’ which is a big part too. I can’t read intention of drivers who are selfishly doing what they want.

it’s the realization that traffic could be better and safer if it wasn’t for certain drivers

I don’t because I don’t want to make it normal to do because it creates a loop hole I’ve seen exploited by racists. If you have a context where it’s acceptable to use racist words they will use it thinking they’re clever.

They’ll pretend to be having a discussion about these words and slide them in as often as possible.

So avoiding it is not normalizing it so its harder to hard

Im not sure if your pro/anti point is true. Its the whole reason ads are a billion dollar industry. To counteract it there should be anti marketing movement.

Revolutions are were wealthy people seize power. If you’re a megalomaniac or just losing power, use your power and influence to convince the poor to riot and then swoop in and seize control in the chaos

Why don’t people bother to fight back though.

We’re getting there. At one time TV was $40/month

Tell all your friends and family what a steaming pile of shit it is. Share memes that tell people its a waste of money. Lots of stuff do to

Auto correct can also fix sentence structure. You could replace every sentence with their suggestion. So what I’m trying to say is that its about how its used. A lot of people are shocked someone would use it to produce things on their behalf. I’m going the other way and saying if used correctly, what is produced is superior to things produced without it.

100% that is dumb.

But in all seriousness I think we all need a pocket lawyer.

Its one of those things that I think causes a ton if inequality. I think its too early but definitely in our lives we could all have a bunch of services in our pocket that are difficult to access now. But that’s not going to happen if we don’t reject this stuff as idiotic.

I watched the legal eagle video about another case where they submitted documents straight from an LLM with hallucinated cases. I can agree that’s idiotic. But if there are a ton of use cases for these things in a lot of profession’s that I think these types of incidents might leave people assuming that using it is idiotic.

My concern is that I think there’s a lot of people trying to convince people to be afraid or suspicious of something that is very useful because they might be threatened either their career or skills are now at risk of being diminished and so they come up with these crazy stories.

I think its a good use. I think the idiotic thing is how it was used. It sounds like he didn’t validate it after which might just be unfamiliar with using new tech. Might be a lawyer looking to get a new trial. Might be just pure incompetence. But I still think its a good use if used correctly

But can they use an auto correct?

But that is like saying instead of spending hours on an essay I cut the time in half with ms word. Its just a tool. If the lawyer produced arguments with it and reviewed it then what’s the issue. And tbjs still doesn’t determine if the work presented was good or not.

But is it a mistrial if the lawyer uses autocorrect?

If the lawyer reviewed the output and found it acceptable then how can you argue it was practicing law. I can write an argument I wantm feed it to AI to correct and improve and iterate through the whole thing. Its just a robust auto correct.

But how do you tell if the AI performed worse or better than the lawyer. What is the bar here for competence. What if it was a losing case regardless and this is just a way to exploit the system for a second trial.