Search results

An increase in options will cause power creep even if those options are no stronger than before. The original set is a distribution, with some a bit below average, some a bit above. The new options are the same. But their addition means instead of 2 or 3 things being noticeabley strong, you get...

But Micah explicitly told you that you were not GMing wrong. See, here:

I think you are conflating "unpopular with those in the industry" with "those in the general public". Most people don't know or care about commercial fishing. But they trust legislators to make decisions in their best interest, including by consultation with experts. Many voters prioritize...

No. But we vote for legislators. Your argument seems to me "it is not a concern if the underlying arguments for regulations are perceived as condescending because these arguments will not be entered into the public record". I don't find that compelling. I think people are aware enough to know...

I'd guess the rates are very different for unsupervised use, at the moment. And the LLM errors are more egregious than what lawyers would typically do--I doubt they are making fake cases that often. My prior for how to sanction LLM use is to apply the same standards you would without LLM use...

Yeah I think the analogy gets the basics right; it is similar in kind, just different in the specifics. Back when I was trying to justify COVID policies in my community, I used seat belts as an example of why safety regulations could be useful. It helped in some cases, but many people...

But regulations are not statements of fact. They weigh many competing concerns, like whether they violate any rights and how to balance economic vs public health goals. Nor is my point "if anyone is insulted you can't make a law". But that how people respond to a regulation is one of many...

I meant it literally. That is why I quoted your phrasing. I'm speaking about the justification for the law, not the text of the law itself. When we discuss whether we ought to have such a law, the justification offered is that people cannot evaluate medical claims accurately. I'm confused. I...

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. I know that. I didn't think that was how the law was going to be phrased.

I've been reflecting on this for a few days and want to add something. My wife used to work with a patient population where diabetes was common. They'd get young kids with risk factors to develop it soon, and advise the parents how to help the kids avoid it. In many cases, the parents would get...

Reflecting on the band and the music. Whether or not the individual works are art, I think the project itself is. A creative vision asking questions about technology and society and how we assign meaning.

Saw this one earlier this week ChatGPT Is Helping Women Get Pregnant

I'd say so. Is conceptualizing something not artistic? Is revising not artistic? If that's too far for you--we can imagine using AI a little less (maybe the background only) or a little less (maybe to rapidly test some color schemes).

This is the most crucial part imo. It is easy for many to reject 100% AI art based on prompting alone. But AI as part of a creative process? Giving AI original concept art, generating many developed versions, and then modifying those into a final product? The boundaries get fuzzy, human...

Yes, d&d players typically prefer more in depth combat that does better with something sequential. That doesn't imply that they are being dishonest or mistaken when they care about a strict order of causation out of combat.

To the extent that this is a departure from Sorensen it is a minor one compared to other examples in the thread. And it is an acceptable one for many players given the complex nature of what is happening.

I know. My point is that the regulatory structure so established enabled whomever that may be to control LLMS in a way they otherwise wouldn't. I guess we are working with different definitions of condescending. I don't see how "my dim view of laymen evaluating much beyond the most basic...

I think the discussion is two sheep passing in the night. Everyone knows there are hallucinations. Everyone knows the hallucinations are bad if you take them seriously. The question is whether "believe what the AI tells you, no questions asked" is a reasonable use case.

That's not at all what I'm saying. But I see this isn't going to be fruitful.

A blanket ban is definitely more defensible.