Didn’t think this image could possibly get any more absurd while still being accurate and yet now you can just replace the lady with automatic emails. Capitalism truly breeds innovation

The Orleans Parish Communication District (OPCD) is changing the way dispatch calls are handled in New Orleans with the implementation of new technology.

There’s a lot of things to blame the police for, but this isn’t one of them. Besides, emergency services aren’t just cops. Why would they have all the say over a hotline they compose only one facet of?

I don’t disagree. My point though is that artificial intelligence and what can be considered as such isn’t the same as what can be considered human intelligence. They don’t share very many mutual aspects aside from those on a very broad and non-specific scale. Therefore considering things such as LLMs an AI isn’t necessarily a misnomer.

AI as a term is constantly changing when it comes to what we actually consider to be meeting its criteria. When chess playing bots were starting to get really good in the 90s for example, people commonly considered that the pinnacle of AI until they got used to it and started to dissociate from that. Rinse and repeat with LLMs today.

Besides, AI is a field, not necessarily a technology, and the capabilities a computer requires for it to be considered “intelligent” aren’t even remotely similar to that of a human being. You can consider a computer intelligent without it being necessarily illogical.

This just in: shit comes from ass

The US is literally a country born through and sustained by violence. You really can’t just get around that when it’s most poignant.

Expecting countries not to violate international law is like expecting a dog to not eat a three-course meal: they won’t when you’re watching and ready to hold them back, but as soon as they know you won’t do much you better believe those dishes will be licked clean.

Tbf it says sauerkraut-inspired, not sauerkraut outright. Regardless if Hitler makes apple pie I’m still gonna eat apple pie provided he didn’t make it

It’s less about you not agreeing with me and more about your opinion being based on false presumptions. You’re entitled to thinking that sarcasm and the ability to detect it is associated with intelligence; I would agree with you on that. But assuming it’s as simple as that without taking into account the method of communication is misleading.

Okay even then the point still stands. You don’t just shun people because they can’t recognize social cues, and you don’t assume they’re any less intelligent for it. It’s just presumptuous.

Not only that, but most cues for the intent of a message are either through tone of voice or body language. It’s disingenuous to assert that there’s no hindrance in the efficacy of communication when being done through a strictly written format. Something your first source lines out explicitly:

Other research has show[n] that sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when communicated electronically. In one study, 30 pairs of university students were given a list of statements to communicate, half of which were sarcastic and half of which were serious. Some students communicated their messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance. By comparison, the e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their sarcastic statements. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of their sarcastic statements via e-mail. What’s more, the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were also decidedly overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mails they received about 90 percent of the time. They were considerably less overconfident about their ability to interpret voice messages.

Given the risks and benefits of sarcasm, your best bet is to keep salty remarks limited to conversations with those you know well, lest you offend others—even as you potentially help them think more creatively.

That last argument I quoted can be directly overcome through the use of tone indicators, regardless of “how intelligent” the recipient is.

I guess that title could maybe be construed as fine if only strangely implicative for the platform, but that sentence under it? “Women who always say yes”? Yikes. Not sure how that can be anything other than plain disgusting.

The joke is that those games suck so bad that even having the option to play them on any form of Linux would make said OS worse

They both kind of suck tbh. The first looks like a nightmare to acid trip in and the other looks like a wizard sucked all the colour out of it.

You know tone indicators are used by neurodivergent people who struggle to understand intent, right?

Jesus dude, why so hostile? There’s nothing inherently wrong with not knowing enough about something.

where is our international solidarity partners?

Solidarity with the nation currently being aggressive toward various instances of its “allied” countries? I can’t see how it’s reasonable to expect any one citizen of those countries to give any amount of support to the nation currently threatening their home’s stability. There’s no practical reason to do anything more than reduce its interactions with said country for the sake of its own citizens’ livelihoods. Global relations are a matter of give and take, and right now all the US is doing is taking.

Had to double-check that I wasn’t having a stroke because of this headline

Primary elections for candidates are a thing aren’t they? I’m Canadian but that seems to be pretty widely practiced.

Removed by mod

Whichever outcome makes him most miserable is preferable

They absolutely suggested that this attack is because of the west.

Yeah? Assuming you’re not just being disingenuous, that’s entirely unrelated to your original accusation. You said, and I quote:

And please tell me how ramming a car into a pride parade is somehow fighting the good fight…

Ascribing a direct material cause to a terrorist attack is nowhere near the same as claiming it to be “fighting the good fight”. You’re attacking a view that doesn’t even exist here.

Anyway, since the rest of your replies here, including this one, are riddled with anecdotal bias, false equivalences and arguments from personal belief, I doubt I’ll be able to have anything comparable to a productive conversation with you, at least when it comes to this topic. Hopefully you’ll be able to get to the top of the hill with your boulder eventually and somehow manage to have a good interaction solely through the use of fallacious if not outright irrational reasoning.