Latin has more rules, but they’re more utilitarian than fancy. Latin rules are there to make sure you understand exactly what is being said. French rules are there to make everything elegant and confusing, like high fashion.

I just have some high school Latin from long ago, but if you parse “fancy” as “ornamental at the expense of utility”, then I think it’s a fair description.

We already established that this is straight up false. Ask your handler for better material.

She specified her criticism was against pro-Hamas, and you’re saying because she didn’t make an additional redundant statement to clarify what that means that she’s implying something other than her literal words? And her call for ceasefire isn’t specific enough, despite the fact that she doesn’t have the authority to draft specific details anyway?

Your reading comprehension isn’t justification for extrapolating these wild hypotheticals.

This is a convoluted uncharitable interpretation. She specifically condemns support of pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric. It’s disingenuous to read that as blanket condemnation of all pro-Palestinian protesters.

deleted by creator

This is just plain false.

That said, she didn’t have to condemn everyone.

Then it’s a good thing she didn’t, and specifically singled out pro-Hamas sentiment.

I think brainstorming is specifically a group activity. When you do it alone, it’s just called “thinking”. The point of brainstorming is to bring in ideas you thought of individually to co-mingle with the ideas other people thought of individually.

Is she, or her family, Muslim French-Caribbean? Many locales in the Caribbean were historically controlled by the French for some time. Many Caribbeans moved to the US, and many would have settled into, broadly, black communities. Many black people in the US converted to Islam.

If she fits this description, it’s perfectly reasonable that she has spent much of her life talking to people with American, French, Caribbean, and Arabic accents. It’s also possible that she consumes media where speakers have those accents. As elsewhere noted, we tend to mimic accents somewhat, especially with consistent exposure.

It’s perfectly reasonable that, shortly after spending some time around a certain accent, or while discussing a topic predominantly discussed with those of a certain accent, she may slip into one herself.

You haven’t really looked into multi-agent setups at all, have you? Basically any system of multiple agents can double-check themselves.

Additionally, none of this conflicts with my original point. If you train a human on bad data, they’ll GIGO too. I know plenty of humans who have confidently told me objectively false things because they had bad training data.

LLMs are AI. They are not AGI. AGI is a particular subset of AI, that does not preclude non-general AI from being AI.

People keep talking about how it just regurgitates information, and says incorrect things sometimes, and hallucinates or misinterprets things, as if humans do not also do those things. Most people just regurgitate information they found online, true or false. People frequently hallucinate things they think are true and stubbornly refuse to change when called out. Many people cannot understand when and why they’re wrong.

Classically, the meme would be the semantic content in this context or a derivative one (unless we consider this text itself to be derivative). It might re-emerge periodically, but some degree of contextual integrity would be necessary for it to be considered the same meme.

The back, that way the peel stays in one large easy-to-dispose-of piece instead of a fragile octopus

Is it? He looks very different

So are narcotics elsewhere. This is a difference of degree, not type. Black markets exist everywhere. Again, I would suppose that the difficulty in acquiring alcohol and the difficulty in acquiring recovery aid largely cancel out. Alcoholism is much less pervasive in places without bars and liquor stores.

I would imagine largely the same as narcotics recovery programs happen in places where narcotics are banned. The reason you think of AA as distinct from NA is because you live in a place alcohol is legal and easily obtained. If you’re in a place where it isn’t, it’s just another illegal drug, and there are recovery programs for illegal drugs. I would imagine it being banned simultaneously makes it harder to find recovery programs and harder to develop dependency in the first place, which sounds like it would roughly cancel out.

This can be done, it’s called nuclear fusion and the sun does it constantly. The practical limitation is, largely, overcoming the electrostatic force.

Basically, because the atoms are similarly charged, squeezing them together is like trying to push together the North sides of two magnets: they repel each other. It takes a massive amount of energy to squeeze them together hard enough to overcome that repulsion, fortunately the sun has enough energy to do this fairly easily. It is much more difficult for humans to do.

Your senses take in more data that you could possibly consciously process. There is an unconscious portion of the mind that does a first pass on the raw data (excitations of the rods and cones in your eyes, of your eardrums, chemical receptors in your nose, etc), and processes it into concepts that your conscious mind can process (images, sounds, smells, etc), and that you personally find significance in (your friend’s face, your favorite song, your partner’s perfume).

Confirmation bias isn’t proof against Chaos Magick, it’s precisely the mechanism that makes it work. The raw data is the chaos, training your subconscious to attach value to particular concepts is the magick. It’s nothing more than repeatedly assigning value to something in a ritualistic way, to train the raw-data-processing part of your mind to trigger the conscious part when the object of value is present in a large batch of data.

It’s like recognizing your friend’s face in a crowd out of the corner of your eye, or when you notice every car on the road that’s the same make and model as your own. Chaos Magick isn’t about creating something from nothing, it’s about training your subconscious to recognize and alert you to what’s already there, hidden in the chaos.

I certainly can, that doesn’t make the extrapolation correct. It’s particularly ironic that you’ve chosen to infer these conclusions in a conversation about the rigor of empirical study.

At no point did they characterize either science or scientists, the latter they never even mention. Their only mention of science is:

Some people, like myself, have no problem accepting that we can’t explain everything with science and data and math.

Which not a characterization of the scientific method. The characterization is a non-empirical, unscientific inference based on your own assumptions.