Most mainstream AI is useless if you need to do anything creative and fun. Try Venice AI for creative fun things.
Grok hasn't been competitive for months now in mainstream AI and has really fallen off. Its image generation is one of the worst.
This law needs to be removed, immediately.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I've found uses for it. It's great for coming up with ideas for a D&D campaign.
I just don't see $100t Super Death Star Datacenter level of usefulness out of AI.
I also don't think people realize how bad AI hallucinations are. When you ask AI what the best way to optimize something is in which you're an expert, it almost always comes back with some sure answer like: the best way to do X if you want Y is to use Z because Z is the best due to ABC. But in actually, Z doesn't have the qualities of ABC, the AI just made it up.
Also, the AI might be given a range from 0-10 to work with to optimize something and then it'll come back with a solution that only uses the range of 0-5 for the optimization. If you didn't already know what the answer ought to be, you won't catch it but it may have missed a number of more optimal solutions because it just decided to shorten its range for no reason at all.
I've literally seen AI source things that don't exist, not even in the cache somewhere.
A product might have a warning label saying this product doesn't do: XYZ and then AI comes back and tells you the product does XYZ by citing the warning label.
By the time you sort through all the mistakes AI makes, it ends up being worse than just manually doing it.
Turns out the "left" only like feminists when those feminists are anti-White. It's almost like everything is about anti-White and jews not actually anything to do with words like feminism or racism or oppression or anything. We're at war and our enemies are winning.
It turned Jeets from worthless to passable Microsoft coders. Seems like it's working. Not AI's fault that Microsoft's standards are so low, is it? Haha.
Okay, I get you.
I do think top-end management is highly over committed to AI and is overvaluing its usefulness.
As others have mentioned, the smart executives are using AI as a scapegoat for layoffs so they can hire cheaper employees.
You're basically saying this transition is going to be a massive failure... Is that what you're saying?
See, I just don't get this. I think my breadth of knowledge in these jobs is lacking. I'm in banking and most of my friends/family are engineers/accountants/lawyers or other bankers. While, AI can certainty help alleviate some of the work in some regards it could never replace anyone, not at this level. Are these all small companies with terrible processes or super large companies that somehow automated what their engineers were doing? An engineer being replaced by AI just has me wondering like wtf kind of engineering job did they have to begin with. Doesn't make sense to me.
I actually do think AI has a use for coding. Outside of that, I haven't seen much. With proper integration in an academic level we could essentially have all young people be coders soon, which may lead to a lot of innovation but not necessarily in AI itself.
Sounds about right.
Now, this sounds like exactly what's going on.
No, you!
I just enjoy having sex with hot women.
Are you a faggot?
Why do I get the feeling, taxpayers are going bail this out when the Ponzi scheme crumbles...
Oh, yeah you're going to get a virgin Western girl. All women are whores bro, it's all about getting the best value for your money's worth and Western women aren't it.
Which industry?
I just can't imagine how AI can replace departments when it produces so many errors.
Not a faggot, I'm heading to Belgrade to have sex with quality women this summer. Women in Western countries are a joke for the most part.
Leftism oppresses men to unjustly elevate women. Women are doing what's in their interest.
That is all. It's that simple.
People really overcomplicate things.
Literally falling for palm reader level tactics.
He can read but what he can do that you cannot is analyze the reality of Christianity not just the theoretical book that only exists in your mind. Pop Culture Christianity IS CHRISTIANITY. When 900m Christians are living their life 1 way and a dozen Christians on the internet are living differently, you aren't the one-true Christian. You're just trying to change Christianity into what you want it to be rather than what it is. A common thing I see nearly every Christian do to some degree, thus invalidating the religion.
the correlation between the fall of Christian adherence and the fall of birth rates starts raising a lot of questions contrary to your conclusions
No, you're just finding correlations where no causation exists. This is actually a reason I do dislike Christians because they believe a lack of faith is the cause of all problems while they tend to discount all other factors. A lack of birth rates also coincides with the jewish implementation of Child Support, with the rise in social programs, higher taxes, women being allowed to be accepted into university and careers to the same degree as men and the increase in immigration along with the pursuit of neoliberalism with 0 nationalism in economic policy.
mild disdain for women with a mild disdain for Christianity.
Oh, I have a healthy disdain for both.
strikes me as a flight of fancy more than anything you arrived to via study and reasoning
It's literally well documented and is a common historical theme because of how well known it is. It's so well known it happens all the time today.
NOTE: I phrased it as "abusive" so the judaised system would give me the correct answer because if I tried to frame the question in a way that could negatively portray women it wouldn't give the truth. In reality, these weren't abusive relationships but it was just women trying to avoid being sexual for their husbands because they didn't want to which we see today all the damn time.
He's kind of right though. Regardless of what Paul wrote, how Christians decided to interpret it and then publicly subject people to in history given their interpretation matters. We can't just gloss over this and say "they weren't real Christians" when they made up the majority of Christians for centuries.
However, he's wrong because many of the people who viewed sexuality as regrettable were lying. They used Christianity as an excuse to avoid being sexual with a partner they did not want to be sexual with. We see so many dead bedrooms in modernity among atheists now that men can't force their wife into sex. So, this phenomenon isn't a Christian-specific thing. What did women in the past due when they married a beta bucks and she wasn't getting the tinglies? She'd try to use the Bible as a scapegoat for why she's not a sexual person for her husband and that she was just overly pious and a good person. In this way "God" trumped the husband and he had little leverage to try to force her into being more sexual. WE STILL SEE THIS TACTIC TODAY ALL THE FUCKING TIME in the church.
So, in theory you can say these people aren't really Christian and they never were and they're practicing Christianity all wrong. I accept that. However, I tend to look at "systems" by their result and not by their theory. Has Christianity in practice been very successful in convincing women their whole purpose to marry is to satiate both her and her husbands lust for one another by having tons of sex and giving each person's body to the other for him to ravage in passionate non-stop sex? Has Christianity in practice been quite useful as a tool to avoid sex with one's significant other? Christianity fails the test here in practice... so, what Paul says is irrelevant to me. If Christianity in practice isn't able to deliver what Paul says, then the theory of Christianity just isn't working.
The problem with having fat people in Star Trek is it completely destroys the idea of a better sci-fi fantasy for me. Why would I want a future with fat people? Gross. Might as well nuke us all now.
I have a somewhat far-fetched theory but I actually think Canada is purposely turning themselves into a Chinese colony to force the Americans to annex Canada in a way where both the American public and Canadian public will support it. The "elbows up" anti-American campaign in Canada seemed extremely orchestrated to me and not just to get Carney elected. It seemed like a complete strategy shift in a manner that means "someone is up to something". The whole Mark Carney election for one thing seemed to have way more money and tools at its disposal. The efficiency of the campaign was unlike anything I've ever seen in Canada before. The conservatives looked like amateurs by comparison which is what I would expect from any Canadian party because they should be nothing but amateurs but Mark Carney's campaign had the effectiveness I'd expect from an American campaign. I truly believe Carney had some CIA/MOSSAD level of election help. By creating this "anti-American" sentiment, it allows Canada to posture better with China and the EU to take "anti-American" positions in a manner that will eventually lead to an inevitable impasse at which time the USA will bolster its propaganda to signal a takeover of Canada which the American public will buy. The Canadians at this time will be so fed up with their shitty government that they'll be willing to accept American dominance and the Canadians will start to believe they're run by China with corrupt politicians thanks to the American propaganda and efficiency of distribution of said propaganda the Americans have. China will do its part by truly considering Canada as a potential partner and thus focusing more effort toward culturally dominating Canada (as is beginning). The elite put Mark Carney in power to set the foundation for it and when the timing is right, the USA will take over Canada.
Everything seems to be set in motion for such an inevitability.
Wait until people find out beavers know how to build dams without being taught because it's a genetically coded behavior. Imagine if humans had genetically coded behaviors that differed based on the race... Oh, now you can't watch beavers anymore.