ariaariza.bsky.social
Pfp by Malice King Phantom.
477 posts
5 followers
67 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Nope.
Especially not when it comes to something that basic for a computer.
comment in response to
post
You're changing the situation.
First, it was someone who has access to Chatgpt.
Now, it's someone else who is also using Chatgpt.
Have you considered that Chatgpt isn't actually worth using as a writing tool, and that the other person may just skip using it altogether?
comment in response to
post
No, backtracking in basic functionalities and accuracy of the code is in fact not normal or acceptable for a program.
comment in response to
post
The quality is in fact not fine, but the answer to that would be that you just don't check or edit anything written by Chatgpt.
comment in response to
post
The fact that you have to verify that information does in fact make such a hypothetical person useless.
You should just refer to the recorded texts that are accurate, rather than resorting to a guessing game with the hypothetical person with infinite knowledge who lies 20% of the time.
comment in response to
post
You're not getting that if the program can't even consistently solve a basic math problem correctly, then there's no reason to trust it with problems that are more complex.
Calculations are a basic part of programs, and there is no reason a language model should lose that fundamental capability.
comment in response to
post
It is code running on a computer, that by definition makes it a program.
It's just really awful code that shouldn't have been developed in the first place.
comment in response to
post
My dude, you have forgotten basic computer terminology.
It is a POORLY designed program, which frankly is not very useful for any practical purpose.
comment in response to
post
It's a uniquely bad program that can't repeat behaviour which it was previously coded to do.
Personally I think it's time to throw out that whole garbage model and code in precisely how a particular program should behave when confronted with a math problem or other situation.
comment in response to
post
Are you sure about that one?
fortune.com/2023/07/19/c...
comment in response to
post
Not a better job in this case, just a faster one.
Assuming, of course, the executives don't care about the quality of what is written or drawn.
Nor the accuracy for that matter, Chatgpt quite often spams nonsense.
comment in response to
post
How so?
comment in response to
post
Why not, exactly?
Are there no poor people in this hypothetical civilized world you speak of?
comment in response to
post
ever do.
It doesn't keep up with the medical demand for replacement, of course, but you should bear in mind that your "nobody" is actually a great many people.
www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blog...
comment in response to
post
Incidentally, about 170 million people are registered for post-mortem organ donation and six thousand people donate their kidneys each year WITHOUT receiving any financial compensation for doing so.
There's actually a whole lot of people willing to do what you said nobody in a stable position would
comment in response to
post
The doctors performing organ transplants are certainly well compensated for their part.
comment in response to
post
getting an abortion ESPECIALLY in cases where not getting one would most likely lead to both mother and child dying.
Similarly with selling organs: If the transplant is survivable for the donor and necessary for the recipient, I don't see why the donor shouldn't be financially compensated.
comment in response to
post
Then I think there are some cases where people's "moral values" should be kept well away from both government and medicine.
If someone has a moral objection to abortion, then they personally can refuse to get an abortion even if that kills them.
However, they should not prevent anyone else from
comment in response to
post
This seems to have gone in quite a different direction than the original topic, but in what order and how do you propose implementing all of these societal changes?
comment in response to
post
death instead?
I'm wondering how exactly banning selling organs would actually help the people considering selling their own, because it seems like you'd need to give those people an equivalent amount of money without receiving the organ in exchange to avoid them needing to sell the organ.
comment in response to
post
Hypothetically, if someone who was in such a situation did want to sell their organs to survive, how exactly does making selling their organs illegal help them?
If you take away options poor people have for getting the money they need to survive, wouldn't the poor people just wind up starving to
comment in response to
post
Regardless, there is the fact that a surrogate mother might need an abortion during a surrogate pregnancy.
comment in response to
post
I don't think "how you personally value and weigh moral choices" has a whole lot to do with how complicated selling organs is, honestly.
comment in response to
post
Plus medical staff involved, same as with organ donation, and any related family who knew of the pregnancy.
My own opinion is that the mother should be able to decide, but there are cases of doctors being charged with murder over assisting in abortions.
comment in response to
post
So, what exactly did Trump do to earn your vote then?
comment in response to
post
So, what exactly did Trump do to earn your vote then?
comment in response to
post
due to pregnancy complications.
comment in response to
post
with pregnancy.
Claiming to be morally opposed to abortion on the ground that "it kills babies" doesn't make them correct. Banning abortion demonstratably significantly increases the death rate of pregnant women without significantly decreasing the death rate of children who would have been aborted
comment in response to
post
Could we, perhaps, dispense with the obfuscation of the situation by describing it in terms of different people's moralities and instead discuss the real world consequences?
There's people who think abortion is inherently immoral and would prefer both mother and child die in event of complications
comment in response to
post
recipient).
If the two are biologically compatible and the surgeon is competent, the risk of death from surgery is very low.
If either of those conditions are false, going through the surgery would be medical malpractice.
There's no complex moral calculus involved in that.
comment in response to
post
Assuming a one to one organ transfer between two humans- and setting aside for the moment alternative organ sources such as cloned or otherwise artificial organs- then that's one person who'll certainly die without the organ (the recipient) or two who may die if the surgery goes poorly (donor and
comment in response to
post
recovery.
It might be better to just abolish the current organ donation system entirely for exploitative practices, and instead match up compatible donors and recipients before even considering organ removal from a potential donor.
comment in response to
post
Fair enough, there's a lot of problems with the current organ donation system anyway, especially with how "brain-dead" patients are treated as legally dead and harvested for organs while their bodily systems are still alive despite recorded cases of patients diagnosed as brain-dead making a full
comment in response to
post
someone else's use or otherwise made accessible to the person paying for surrogacy.
comment in response to
post
Those health risks exist for pregnancy regardless of whether the pregnancy is a surrogate pregnancy, a pregnancy inside of marriage, or a pregnancy outside of marriage.
I'm inclined to disagree with referring to surrogacy as renting as well, because the body part is not temporarily detached for
comment in response to
post
No, the payout I'm suggesting would be immediate for enrolling in organ donation which occurs after you die.
The person enrolling could use the funds immediately themselves.
comment in response to
post
Does surrogacy even really count as selling part of your body?
In a literal sense surrogacy is paying someone to become pregnant then adopting the baby.
comment in response to
post
That is somewhat rude Roland.
It would be better to state precisely what part of this idea you object to.
comment in response to
post
Why not, precisely?
It is someone's own body, after all.
If someone made a necklace from their own hair, would you similarly oppose them selling that?
comment in response to
post
How about compensation for post-mortem organ donation?
As things stand, people obtaining drivers' licenses are expected to give away their organs for free if they choose the organ donor option.
comment in response to
post
Would you prefer the Pig kidneys?
www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/h...
comment in response to
post
Freedom of the press does seem to cover what Media Matters has done.
comment in response to
post
supply enough food to Guangdon to replace the 10 thousand cats the people of Guangdon would have eaten that day?
Of course not.
They didn't think through what the consequences of their protest's success would be, and both the cats and the people of Guangdon would starve.
comment in response to
post
matter when they won't live long enough to remember it.
And do those 40 retirees protesting Guangdong's culinary practices in Beijing have a proposed plan for what to do with the ten thousand cats that would have been eaten in Guangdong over the course of a day?
Let alone how they're going to
comment in response to
post
Not that it particularly matters to the cat once they're cooked.
They still wind up dead on a dinner plate whether they die before or after the boiling starts.
It's just a cultural sensibility that's driving the conclusion that killing them first is better, because after all the pain doesn't
comment in response to
post
It's funny how the members of the "small government" party often seem to be the ones it'd make the most sense to remove from the government.
comment in response to
post
seems to be other companies ceasing to purchase ad placement on twitter- which legally, none of those companies were ever required to purchase in the first place.
comment in response to
post
It's a pretty tenuous argument, but the letter seem to be referring to Media Matters monetizing screenshots of highly political posts and in some cases ads being promoted next to those highly political posts.
While these articles have led some people to donate to Media Matters, the larger concern
comment in response to
post
Elon Musk has referred to twitter as that before, so probably.
comment in response to
post
By the way, in Guangdong China, the cats are cooked alive.
www.cbsnews.com/news/cat-eat...