In the court document, it lays out how OpenAI developed the latest model to prioritize engagement. In this case, they had a system that was consistently flagging his conversations as high risk for harm, but it didn't have any safeguards to actually end the conversation like it does when requested to generate copyrighted material.
The complaint is ultimately saying that OpenAI should have implemented safeguards to stop the conversation when the system determined that it was high risk rather than allowing it to continue to give responses from the large language model.
Humans have made a lot of shitty, uninspired music as well. So it could mean that AI-generated slop is indistinguishable from human-made slop, in which case, it would still be bad music.
I had an English teacher in middle school who named her son Sean, pronounced like "seen," and she always complain about how people always pronounced it like "Shawn."
Personally, I think it's a tad rude to name your child with an uncommon spelling as it's just setting then up for a lifetime of minor annoyances. But to use a fairly common variant and insist on a non-standard pronunciation is far worse.
This would be called Emotional Detachment or Emotional Blunting. It is associated with several mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia, and it can be developed as a coping mechanism for a stressful or abusive childhood or past. It can also develop as a side effect for some medications, so it could be worth looking into a change in prescriptions if you think that could be relevant.
That is to say, it is an abnormal mental state, but you are not unique in this mindset. You should strongly consider reaching out to a mental health professional to see if you can work on this as it is likely to lead to more isolation and a worsening of your overall well-being.
FYI, it looks like that story about the paws is false.
The truth behind it is that there was a furry that somehow got severe frostbite when they fell asleep while icing their hands to deal with arthritis pain. After that, friends made a post trying to raise money for their medical bills, and they jokingly commented about getting him new paws. And that apparently spread elsewhere as "a furry amputated their hands to get paws."
Here in the US, the typical flow is that you'll be seated at the table with menus, and then the waiter will leave to get some waters. When they return and fill your glasses, they'll ask if you want to order any drinks, and regardless of whether you order anything besides water, they'll ensure that your glass of water is never empty.
However, I think California passed a law to require restaurants to only provide water when asked, but that might only be when there's a drought and a need to conserve potable water supplies.
She wasn't saying that water was spontaneously boiling in this chamber. She was saying that they were in a space-equivalent chamber with a pressure such that water would spontaneously boil. If you found yourself in the environment that is being simulated here (outer space), you would be able to observe water spontaneously boiling without the vacuum pumps.
They mention Clinton because when he left office, the federal government was running at a surplus and was paying down the national debt. However, that changed after Bush came to office and passed tax cuts before starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It doesn't sound like she's afraid of being sanctioned by Columbia. Rather, it sounds like she's disgusted by Columbia and no longer wishes to be associated with them.
They have performed a handful executions using nitrogen gas over the last few years in Mississippi and Alabama. From what I understand, the people have all shown signs of distress and oxygen hunger during the executions, and the autopsies show signs of distress.
I think the pathologist that reviewed the first such execution had said that it would likely have gone better if a sedative were administered beforehand. However, I'm pretty sure that nitrogen hypoxia executions were being used because pharmaceutical companies were unwilling to provide medications for use in lethal injections, so that would likely extend to sedatives for use during executions. But in the absence of sedatives, the process is panic inducing, which causes people to resist inhaling the nitrogen, which in turn means that they are not exhaling as much carbon dioxide and thus experience the panic associated with suffocation.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you're at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?
You can read more about the scam they were referring to from Colonel Parker's Wikipedia article.
Presley had been showing signs of rebellion against Parker, and Parker believed that a stint in the Army would cure him of this. Parker was looking ahead when he persuaded Presley to become a soldier. Presley had wanted to join Special Services, allowing him the opportunity to perform while at the same time getting a more leisurely ride than other soldiers. Parker, on the other hand, was fully aware that any particular treatment given to Presley would instantly be used against him in the media and by those who disliked his style of music. If Presley could show the world that he was treated the same as any other young man, Parker told him, then more people would accept him and his music. Parker was also afraid that any attempt to block Presley from being drafted would result in a more detailed look into Parker's own service record. He also realized that it would be an excellent opportunity to promote Presley by having the media witness his induction day, including the army haircut that would see the shearing of Presley's iconic hairstyle.
While Presley served in West Germany, Parker appeared to be in complete control, but he was worried about the outside influences that Presley might encounter there. Parker had declined to travel to Europe to visit Presley, denying that he spoke any language other than English. He sent Presley's friends to keep him company, arranged for business associates to watch over him while working in Europe, and maintained regular contact with him. He was reportedly afraid that Presley would realize that other managers were prepared to sign contracts that did not require as much as 25% of his earnings.
I'm not an expert in the Bible, but I don't think it really ascribes omnipotency to God. I think it's better to understand it as God being able to do all that can be done. So He may have limitations, but they are such that no other being can do something that He is unable to do.
From that sense, He is not able to save humanity freely, but he can set forth a process through which He can achieve this goal with some cost. I.e., He can create a divine being (that is either Himself in whole, Himself in part, or a direct descendant of Himself depending on your interpretation) that is able to spread His message and display an act of extreme self-sacrifice.
I don't really understand exactly what the sacrifice did or what needed to be fixed, but I do think the stories make a lot more sense if you accept that God has some limitations. For instance, I assume that Noah's flood was his first attempt to fix the problem (by killing everybody except for the most righteous of His creation), but it failed because He can't do everything and doesn't know everything. And the story of Jesus was His next attempt to sort things out.
But that's just me thinking about them as fictional stories that really need to be edited rather than a divine and infallible truth.
In the court document, it lays out how OpenAI developed the latest model to prioritize engagement. In this case, they had a system that was consistently flagging his conversations as high risk for harm, but it didn't have any safeguards to actually end the conversation like it does when requested to generate copyrighted material.
The complaint is ultimately saying that OpenAI should have implemented safeguards to stop the conversation when the system determined that it was high risk rather than allowing it to continue to give responses from the large language model.