I’m not saying AI shouldn’t be regulated, but I am saying I think we’re too incompetent to regulate it and will just be giving industry players barriers to entry and monopolies instead of regulating AI.

Ship Troopers.

Becuase it’s campy and gritty and funny and serious.

The girlfriend sounds really childish. To the point I’m wondering if these are very young people, like early teens. If so it isn’t that that don’t care, it’s that they’re very immature and don’t know how to deal with anything uncomfortable and just shove it out of the way and move on to what they can easily distract themselves with.

If this person is an adult, I’m very concerned about their maturity level, becuase it sounds really stunted.

It’s not effectively any woman, it’s a women who is using their birth certificate for ID. Which is effectively 1/3 of the options so it’s significant but not “effectively mean any married woman can’t vote.”

They can use a passport, state issued ID such as Drivers license or ID card or a birth certificate. The new drivers licenses and IDs that are “real IDs” which is required now are also proof of citizenship.

Russia attacking Ukraine is definitely more of a European issue than a US one. And if the NATO countries had just spent 4% of their GDP on defense as agreed they wouldn’t need to be complaining now.

Or if you just let Ikraine into NATO or the EU.

Basically this is a war of gross European neglect and complaining about anyone other than yourself is candidly offensive.

Reminds of the move THEM! (1954) about giant ants.

So John the Baptiste was a nazarite and they don’t cut their hair or trim their beard. Jesus takes over John’s mission, and there no lines from Jesus explaining why his hair is trimmed or excusing hair or anything. I know it’s popular to note there’s no reason to think Jesus was a nazarite but fundamentally I think we can conclude he likely was.

I think they think it empowers them.

Based on the wording I’m guessing it’s a gated community.

I recently freed my 8 year old human child from a gap in the couch.

I write to you all from the parents table.

It began lame as hell. I was a single man with a married brother who had a young child. I was clearly there to keep them company.

Later, there I was with my own child. At a table of people I didn’t know with children. Next to the goddamn speaker.

Then, I’m happy to report, I was at one of my favorite cousins weddings. I was there with her oldest brother and his child my kids age. And a bunch of other people with kids that age. And it was awesome. Finally.

I submit the best table at a wedding is one that you really fit in with. Whatever commonality that may be.

deleted by creator

But that’s fundamentally a flawed argument. It’s more expensive becuase death penalty cases have more rights. Specifically in the US what is called “actual innocence” is not grounds for an appeal to a life sentence but is for a death penalty.

Ideally we would extend that everyone, not save a few bucks and justify continued incarceration of innocent people by noting “hey it’s not a death sentence.”

Imagine the scenario of an innocent person who can’t appeal becuase the trail was fair but would have been freed if they had been sentenced to death, but becuase of the judge or jury’s mercy, they are imprisoned for life.

That has happened here.

Not think a great argument for abolishing the death penalty since it fundamentally is just saying “it is way too expensive to let any prisoners appeal based on being innocent. We could save so much money if didn’t let anyone do that.”

I don’t know. I mean it’s probably a very bad model and these people are just being scammed for a gpt 3.0. I can’t say I like them but I still abhor a scam.

If only. If you google an AI specifically for litigation you’ll get websites selling weekly access for just shy of $500.

I often get very large pleading dumps immediately prior to a hearing instead of at a more logical time and I think it’s the pro se scrounging the money together for another fix of an expensive AI website.

I sincerely doubt it. Judges want to do justice. I think most people would call having a robot judge your pleadings and dismiss merit less claims as dystopian.

Even if it was just “parsing” that’s a layer between you and the judge. Probably also dystopian.

I can only speak to my field, which is legal. Incomprehensible but prolific drivel has always been something the court system has struggled with getting through. That same drivel is now pretty good at pleading generalities but it’s awful at detailing facts.

You can get past the first hurdle in the legal world and unlock a massive and expensive cascade which AI can also effectively navigate for you.

In essence, AI can, very effectively, take an incoherent unreasonable and often mentally unwell litigant and magnify the expense of getting rid of their frivolous claim by over 100.

It’s almost assuredly going to 1. Chock the system. 2. Force massive reallocation of resources in the judiciary 3. Thereby vastly increasing not decreasing legal work. And 4. End up with valid claims being killed in a massive change in judicial attitude toward “clear enough” pleadings as they struggle with an AI influx.

I told her we were going to get married, and all she could talk about was frogs.
She said there’s these hills where it’s hot and rains all the time, and in the rainforests there are these very tall trees and right in the top branches of the trees there are these like great big flowers called . . . bromeliads, I think, and water gets into the flowers and makes little pools and there’s a type of frog that lays eggs in the pools and tadpoles hatch and grow into new frogs and these little frogs live their whole lives in the flowers right at the top of the trees and don’t even know about the ground, and once you know the world is full of things like that, your life is never the same.

“A murder should only have one victim. When Ratchett kills Daisy Armstrong, a dozen lives are broken, deformed, ended, THEY DEMAND JUSTICE! Of all these wounded souls, we must finally answer — who among them is a killer? Who takes up the knife? The answer is… no single one of you could have done it. Nor any pair. It could have only be done… by all of you."*

I love that Bing Crosby just refilmwd the same movie a decade in and called it a day.