What he wants is to keep taking home a paycheck. Just a puppet.

Sure but they’re doing opposite tasks. You’re absolutely right that they could be wrong sometimes. So are people. Over time it gets better, especially with more regulation and smarter models.

Now do Indiana!

The user. You could have the output include the “conversation” between the agents and validate the decisions. Not perfect, but better. People aren’t perfect either.

The checker models aren’t trying to give you a correct answer with confidence. Their purpose is to find an incorrect answer. They’ll both do their task with confidence.

Get ready for the AI bubble to burst. The combination of regulations and movin towards the enlightenment period of the Dunning Kruger curve can only lead to the inevitable end of the hype and beginning of the tumble downward.

There should be a series of AI agents in place when a GPT is used. The agents intake the query and review the output before sending it off to the user.

Unfortunately this type of logical fallacy is used across the political spectrum. It’s an easy defense that makes people feel justified without having to do any critical thinking.

You don’t like something about my beliefs? You’re a bigot.

Wow that’s a new take. Nanny state is definitely a liberal term for not wanting to be tracked by the government. Porn restrictions requiring identification. Police having cameras to track you. That’s all stuff the right want.

I feel like the only defense is to edge towards a nanny state (live stream everything, gps trackers). There’s no good alternative if the law won’t help. Or you gotta break the law yourself.

Are you okay? What’s really bothering you? It’s not about the ruling. I can tell it’s something else. I’m being genuine. You can DM me.

Great chat! Read the ruling:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

So you don’t have an answer to my question? Sounds like you’re the one operating blindly. Just saying things.

I asked you first. So annoying.

Here ya go: The ruling is against universal injunctions. Any existing injunctions stay and any future plaintiffs can block the order as well. It just can’t be stopped across the country from any existing or future rulings. Unless of course the Supreme Court ends up saying it’s unconstitutional.

Your turn.

Yup. That’s how it is currently. Doesn’t have to be state by state either. Even more granular. Individuals who file suit and win can be immune to it, but other in the same state who have not filed suit could be vulnerable to it. The Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling on whether the order is unconstitutional or not.

Please explain how they removed the ability to challenge it.

Also, they are still going to make a decision. Just haven’t done it yet.

I’d support this. Build an AI tool that’ll take care of it for you.

That’s not true either. The people who filed suit can stop him, but not for the entire nation.

I hope nobody tries to assassinate him. Seems like there’s A LOT of money involved in this race.

This title isn’t true. The court has not “given the OK”