I have also enjoyed two similar shows, not mark twain, but also one man shows embodying a historical figure, apparently it’s a popular thing to do. I am glad to hear you had a positive experience like that.

I hope you did not feel I was taking your comment in bad faith. I believe I understood where you were coming from, but I think though the desire is valid, there’s no real way for AI to ever accomplish that. I understand that you want it to be grounded in fact, and I just think that in order to ground things in fact, it has to exclusively quote the original documents.

If I asked a perfectly modeled George Washington if the US should have been created, one could argue the AI Washington could reasonably say “yes”. If I then explained to that AI Washington that the country actually went on to create political factions exactly as he warned against and then provided a list of atrocities committed by the US and said they would not have been committed if we were under British rule, and then also explained how the British government has changed since he passed, and asked if he still supported the forming of the US, what is the AI going to say? One could make arguments multiple ways and even a “perfect” AI would never actually know. People can hold contradictory opinions or have their minds changed in unpredictable ways when given new information. My point is that historical documents are just that. Historical documents. They are not a perfect representation of the person and we should never expect them to be. To model an AI off of them and suggest talking to it is talking to the original person is in my opinion a falsehood and always will be no matter how good the AI is. I hear that you don’t think we’re there yet, but I would suggest that even if every moment of someone’s life could be analyzed by AI, there is no talking to them through the AI. Only a guess at what they might have said. That may be fine for some people, but I think it’s not positive to have people believe they definitely know what Washington would say about the marvel cinematic universe. I thought my interpretation was clear, and I’m now seeing a different comment that seems to have at least understood where I was coming from. They were much more concise lol.

I have a feeling that the government kidnapping members of their community and not being held accountable is actually not that unthinkable to a lot of indigenous people. I don’t want to speak for them, but the body of the article doesn’t really give the impression either so I feel like the title is a little insulting to their history.

I think this mindset is part of the issue. You cannot converse with a deceased historical figure. AI does not change that. If you want to know what they said on a topic, you might be able to search through their work, or read others interpretations of their work, but there is no way to ask them something they did not previously address and get an honest answer. You may be able to get an educated guess, but there is no way to know someone’s thoughts unless they were somehow already expressed. If you’re ok with AI just guessing as to what they might have said, then how are you to distinguish what they actually believed from things the AI just decided they believed. If you’d require the AI to add a disclaimer (“I never spoke on that, but if I had to guess…”) then who decides what follows? There’s plenty of debate on how to interpret certain works already, so which side does it tell? Does it do both? Is it going to both sides everything? I don’t think that would be a positive.

I understand wanting to be immersed in history, but I think original sources are our best way of doing so. I think movies or historical fiction books provide the necessary distance so there’s no real confusion. If you watch a dramatization of a historical figures life I don’t think people assume that every line is a direct quote. That kind of media also keeps the interaction on rails, so there’s no need to answer if George Washington would have enjoyed a brat summer. With AI people can often get whatever answer they want while using leading questions. If all of that was locked down, you’d be left with a fancy audiovisual quoting preexisting first party sources that just removes the impetus for the user to do any kind of sourcing themselves, while wasting time and energy.

I think people do recognize what the underlying issue is, but it’s hard to organize against “racism” or “capitalism” or anything else for that matter. Sure, you can march, but in reality if you march and then go back to your normal life having changed nothing, you will likely change nothing. Target for example had a drop in sales due to boycotts, and plenty of border towns are being hit by a drop in tourism.

If you want ire directed at the people telling the story, then it needs to be directed at capital. That’s what boycotts do. Sure, you can’t stop everyone from traveling, but if you have a friend wanting to see Yellowstone and they see social pressure to not travel to the US, maybe they’ll wait. If enough people do that then the tourism industry suffers and the surrounding industries as well. I do not want people to financially struggle, but unfortunately if no one changes their behavior then the world continues to get worse. I’m seeing that the EU is investing in EU tech infrastructure and that’s amazing. That’s what I want to see. Divest from the US so that other countries are not so able to be affected by US pressure.

I can’t speak for the person you’re responding to, but I can say that if I was out of the country I would not go to the US for most reasons people travel. I have family in red states, and I have just decided not to visit them or go to family events there. They don’t even agree with the state government, but moved there because it was fiscally convenient, they were not personally affected by the laws, and they don’t mind being surrounded by people that agree with those policies. At a certain point we all have to make our own choices, and I would rather not spend money in a red state. If people come for life saving treatment, or they would lose their income otherwise, I can see how they would make that decision, but I seriously question anyone coming for things not related to life and limb.

People should boycott the US whenever possible at this point. We were always bad, but we’re out and out fascist at this point. I wouldn’t visit Germany during the rise of Hitler, so I don’t know why I’d make excuses for the US. I don’t think it’s about thinking you personally will get deported, it’s about solidarity and geopolitics.

I think partially the assumption is that it’s an in and out mission. Much harder to change someone’s life for the better in the course of a day than be guaranteed to stop their part in evils to come. If you told me I had one day to convince Hitler to not do the holocaust or just kill him, I don’t think I’d bet millions of lives on my skills of persuasion. Also, and this may be a bit doomer of me, but at a certain point people may never take to rehabilitation. I don’t know that Stephen miller could ever change the person he is. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try, but again, I wouldn’t be millions of lives on it.

This was put out by a lobbying group that happens to be pro AI, just for everyone’s information.

we refuse to enforce the rules against people who are visibly on our side

I’d much prefer they embrace martyrdom than the murdering thing they’ve been doing instead.

I don’t know who keeps suggesting that things are uniquely human, but they should probably stop at this point. Animals play fight all of the time and big cats pretty famously will pretend to be startled by their cubs when they engage in hunting like behavior. I’m not saying research isn’t important, but who is going around denying ape imagination?

He seems to frame it as such. He notes that he’s learned lessons and seems to show it as a before/after in the table. Presumably if it wasn’t satisfactory he would not have stopped improving it there.

Fair point. Thank you for the chuckle.

I understand that, but he says he made some adjustments and after those it’s still checking 14 times a day? He seems satisfied with that outcome and I am just not sure if I’m misinformed or if there’s a reason that after the improvements it’s still requiring all those checks. It seems like the initial outcome was stupid, but I don’t understand why his improved outcome is viewed as an acceptable way to accomplish that task.

Oh, I understand that, but then if you look at the table, he says he improved it and it’s still checking 14 hours a day.

I’m extremely confused. Why is he checking the time every hour 14 times a day? I understand he’s trying to test AI out so he’s doing something trivial, but I feel like I’m having an aneurism reading this. This is still not an optimal way to do reminders. Am I just really dumb or is this nonsense?

Let’s pay people to use AI to pay people to do the job we used to pay people to do anyway, but this time it’s rent seekers all the way down. Can’t wait.

This should really go without saying, but the government should not allow, much less endorse, companies experimenting on their citizens. I’m pretty sure the government should protect people from corporations, not feed people to them.

the hospital will test AI tools for check-ins, triage and outpatient care and AI will be tested in schools and at Barnsley College, all in an effort to improve pupils’ results and teachers’ workloads

AI has no place in these settings, certainly not yet. Why do you even need AI for checking in? This is extremely sad to see, and I highly recommend reading the whole article. There’s a nursing and teacher shortage in the UK. Why not bolster those programs instead? I understand wanting to give your community options, but I certainly don’t want to hire someone who thinks asking AI to do their work for them is a life skill. I do see people hiring for positions that use AI, but you have to know how to do their job first. Why not focus on that?

DEI tends to encourage the hiring of diverse people because they have been historically underrepresented due to past policies and systemic injustices. One could argue DEI is people making choices due to the behavior of people from previous generations. It seems at odds to support that and not acknowledge some concept of debt owed to people wronged by society in the past.

Also, DEI is not about lowering standards. It’s a pretty common dog whistle to suggest that corpos pick less qualified candidates because of DEI. I’m not suggesting you intended it that way, but going forward it’s good to keep that in mind.

Do you have an opinion on DEI?

I appreciate you posting content to the community though. Not trying to discourage posting here, just adding that context in case people outside the US were not aware. Im assuming this is in the US.