rutellthesinful

this might count as destroying evidence

what scenario are you imagining where any of meta’s product offerings are useful to me?

tfw your national strategic reserve of facebook posts is depleted

“Write your system prompt in English” also works

just ask for the output to be reversed or transposed in some way

you’d also probably end up restrictive enough that people could work out what the prompt was by what you’re not allowed to say

a supernova is caused by nuclear fusion

teleporters don’t work through shields

do you do the same when somebody says “China”?

the cold war, probably

is the brain tumor gone or is this a hallucination?

you fool

“these are chatgpt’s recommendations we just provided research to back them up and verify the ai’s work”

Releasing the hostages

oh you mean like the cease fire they offered months ago that was refused?

the solution was staring us in the face the whole time

holding those hostages is basically the last bargaining chip keeping Israel from just bombing all of Gaza into rubble

so in other words, it wouldn’t end it any time, because israel would continue to bomb gaza into rubble?

what is your plan for hamas ending it at any time?

you’re confusing AGI/GI with AI

video game AI is AI

companies don’t update legal documents for fun

you’re also continuing to pointedly ignore what this conversation is actually about, so i’m guessing you don’t really have anything relevant to say in response

CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance

why would they need to cover themselves against the scenario you’re arguing they were already covering themselves against?

that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs

or when agreeing to them, which is literally the problem here

you can’t meaningfully consent to every arbitrary hypothetical future scenario

you agreed to that too

you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn’t make it legally binding, right?

hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services

It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it’s still being argued

people continuing to use a bad argument doesn’t make it a good one

I’m not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data

tell me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation without telling me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation

the update to the legal contract they have you agree to was in no way legally motivated?