Overall, my theory lines up with yours. They knew thr simple minds at the top would fire them, and somehow that benefits them. They are lawyers after all, and getting hired into the jobs they had makes it very likely they were at least savvy in political maneuvers.

I didn’t need to reach at all. I brought down to several simple examples. You just aren’t willing to open your mind and consider it.
I 100% agree that it confuses and ill informs many adults. That is why I think it is so important that kids be exposed to it, and taught to think critically about what it tells them. It isn’t going to go away. And who kmows, they might learn to apply that same critical thinking to what the talking heads on the internet tell them. But even if not, it would be worth it.

It really doesn’t. Tyr looking it up… Oh wait, you won’t, so here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice 1-b nails it, but 1-a covers it to with “individual” and “group”. Which are listed even before race.

How about this. I think it is pretty well known that pilots and astronauts are trained on simulations where some of the information they get from “tools” or gauges is wrong. On the surface it is just simulating failures. But the larger purpose is to improve critical thinking. They are trained to take each peice of information into context and if it doesn’t fit, question it. Sound familiar?

AI spits out lots of information with every response. Much of it will be accurate. But sometimes there will be a faulty basis in it that causes one or more parts of the information to be wrong. But the wrongness almost always follows a pattern. In context the information is usually obviously wrong. And if you learn to spot the faulty basis, you can even sus out which information is still good. Or you can just tell it where it went wrong and it often will come back with the correct answer.

Talking to people isn’t all that different. There is a whole sub for confidently wrong on reddit. But spotting when a person is wrong is often harder because the depth of thier faulty basis can be soo much deeper than an AIs. And, they are people, so you pften can’t politely question the accuracy of what they are saying. Or they are just a podcast… I think you get where I am going.

Did you even read the comment I responded to? “Whenever I find out that someone uses any of these LLMs, or Ai chatbots, hell even Alexa or Siri, my respect for them instantly plummets.”

They are litterally judging someone before they even know any details other than that they use any form of AI at all. Could be a cyber security researcher fir all the commenter knows.

I think this pretty much answers the question “are humans evil?” Spoiler, yes.

But he doesn’t actually know thier actions. He knows they “use” siri. But he knows absolutely nothing about how. If they explained in detail how they use siri, then it would not be prejudice. But just the phrase, I use siri, is far from knowing thier actions. It’s not like I use an Ice pick, which has one generally understood use.

Read the word. Prejudice … pre judice… pre judgment. Judging someone on limited information that isn’t adequate to form a reasonable opinion. Hearing someone uses siri and thinking less of them on that tiny fact alone is prejudice. For all you know, siri is some part of how they make a living. Or any of a thousand reasons someone may use it and still be a good intelligent person.

You hit on why I don’t use them. But some people don’t care about that for a variety of reasons. Doesn’t make them less than.

Anyone who tries to use AI and not apply critical thinking fails at thier task because AI is just wrong often. So they either stop using it, or they apply critical thinking to figure out when the results are usable. But we don’t have to agree on that.

I couldn’t even finish the article. The mental gymnastics it would take to write it could only come from someone who never learned how to use AI. If anything, the article is a testament to how our children and everyone should be taught how to use AI effectively.

That sounds like a form of prejudice. I mean even Siri and Alexa? I don’t use them for different reaons… but a lot of people use them as voice activated controls for lights, music, and such. I can’t see how they are different from the clapper. As for the llms… they don’t do any critical thinking, so noone is offloading thier critical thinking to them. If anything, using them requires more critical thinking because everyone who has ever used them knows how often they are flat out wrong.

Well in this case it probably isn’t money he is after, but attention and fame. That said, just tell him you had a past “incident” you don’t like to talk about, but that your image shouldn’t be on anything that might give away your current location. Lol.

Well, they want certain people to stare at thier breasts, not others.

You could say the same about having to cover genitals.

Look, I didn’t read your whole thing, because if you think trump personally picked up a single box of those docs or even was there when they were moved, you are crazy. He probably just told someone to keep the “best” documents. But I also said that your theory is possible. I just don’t find it likely.

In fairness, workers are very often the most expensive part of a business. Ya’know because they want a living wage… terrible people…

Yes, but teaching is not one of those professions. Medical professionals actually the only ones I know of bound by law to not speak. Lawyers are “protected” by law, but not actually bound. If they do speak they can be disbarrred, but not jailed I believe. Teachers are mandatory reporters, which compells them to speak, but nothing in law says what they can’t say. And yes, there are some exceptions against free speach, but if you look at them, they generally are things that endanger multiple people at one time. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater. So those don’t apply here. Also, those cases it is clear that the restriction only prevents a downside. In this case, there could be upsides. A child who hasn’t told thier parents and is struggling with it, but who’s parents could be supportive. In that case, not being allowed to tell them could cause harm. So it isn’t cut and dry like the others.

As for the bad teachers, yes, I addressed that in the next sentence or two after the quote you gave.

Ah, but what about hunting other “boats”. Cuase ships and boats aren’t the same… most of the time.

That’s why I threw in the maybe. Anything is possible. On the witness thing… I am sure it wasn’t a small boat. He could just go to a room and witness nothing.

You should really read up. While it is state dependent, emotional abuse is cover under mandatory reporting in most state.

I get that you’re not too bright, didn’t read the article, and didn’t really read what I wrote, but… acting like nazis and telling teachers what they can and can’t say to parents isn’t the way to defeat the nazis.