Same, I hardly ever look at my phone anymore during the day. I just glance at my notifications from my watch, if it’s not important I swipe it away and if it’s something I need to follow-up on I’ll just leave it for later. Then I go right back to whatever I was doing.

I get distracted a lot less these days, and my phone gets insane battery life now. My Pixel 6 is several years old now, but it still regularly gets 48+ hours of life because of how little wear I put on the battery.

That’s because it is.

The harm would be reinforcing medical misinformation. If you validate one misconception, it’s very likely for that person to gain a lot of misplaced confidence in other incorrect beliefs.

Remember, people were eating horse deworming paste for a while, to treat a disease they didn’t even believe existed, all because somebody validated some medical misinformation. People are dangerously stupid.

The hymen is not an indicator of sexual activity at all. A girl can have sexual intercourse and not break her hymen, and a girl can break her hymen from non-sexual activities.

Was.

Por que no los dos?

But then you wouldn’t see the shadow.

You and I are posting on the Fediverse right now (capital F). If I create two of my own personal Lemmy instances that only federate with each other, they’re not a part of the Fediverse. I’ve now created my own fediverse (lower-case F). The Fediverse is a fediverse, but not all fediverses are the Fediverse.

Same with internet and Internet. There is the main, collective Internet that we all know and use daily, but it’s one of many internets.

Nobody called you anything, dude. Are we having different conversations or something?

Are you talking about the hypothetical scenario you made up about the subject you don’t even understand? No wonder we’re going in circles.

I’m talking about the article.

Bruh. The task was to mislead. That’s what it did.

That’s not completing a task.

That’s faking a result for appearance.

That was the task.

So working as designed means presenting false info?

Yes. It was told to conduct a task. It did so. What part of that seems unintentional to you?

Read about how LLMs actually work before you read articles written by people who don’t understand LLMs. The author of this piece is suggesting arguments that imply that LLMs have cognition. “Lying” requires intent, and LLMs have no intention, they only have instructions. The author would have you believe that these LLMs are faulty or unreliable, when in actuality they’re working exactly as they’ve been designed to.

Do these backups also contain the edit histories?

What’s interesting about these carts is that they only ever seem to be deployed at stores that I wouldn’t think were prone to cart theft, to begin with. They’re always in the nicer neighborhoods at the overpriced stores that nobody should be shopping at in the first place.

Meanwhile, every cart at the stores in the worse neighborhoods look like they’ve been used as target practice for an M1 Abrams tank, have no locks, and can be found scattered on random street corners for a 3 mile radius from the store.

Ooohh, okay that makes more sense! So by the time you’ve already received the product, the scam has already been finished and you’re just left throwing away somebody else’s garbage. How wasteful.

I read through this a few times, and I’m still not sure how exactly this is supposed to work. The QR phishing part makes sense, but is the gist that they just sent out random crap to random people, in hopes that a few of them will leave a positive review somewhere?

“I love to slur!”

In truth, he missed the bowl but still wants that praise, anyway.