That is why I said up to a million people according to the legacy media. I'm pretty sure a sizeable number of people will leave NYC due to the election results but I don't know how many.
You're seriously claiming that Trump, or his administration, would act with class and offer condolences if an opponent were killed or died? He couldn't even be bothered to say anything about the Hortmans being murdered by a MAGA lunatic [0].
He and his shitty son both publicly mocked Paul Pelosi multiple times after another MAGA nutjob attacked him with a hammer. [1][2]
Well, we've already crossed into "the law is what I say it is" territory thanks to the republicans, so the next admin just needs to leverage that. The GOP thinks that pardons signed by autopen are invalid [0] so I don't see what would stop the democrats from apply the same logic to ICE agents and administration, except perhaps cowardice.
> when constitutional government is restored they can and should go to prison for it.
I completely agree but fear the democrats will be too spineless to do anything like this. A radical change in the democrat party is needed - they should be promising to pack the supreme court and prosecute 3/4s of this administrations officials, at a minimum.
IMO there is a profound degree of anger within the Demoratic party (as evidenced by their approval ratings). I will absolutely vote for the candidate who vows to viciously pursue every single person who broke any law during this entire ordeal. I'm a single issue voter, that's my issue, and I doubt I'm alone.
Why only democrats? Why should American citizens who identify with the Republican Party tolerate destruction of constitutional order? If the constitution goes, it won’t matter what party you prefer - everyone is at risk.
The modern Republican Party stands for the destruction of the constitutional order. Liz Cheney was publicly purged for not being willing to go along with it. As a number of Bush-era constitutional conservatives have realized, an American citizen who won’t tolerate the destruction of the constitutional order cannot identify with the Republican Party.
Fantastic video, I really enjoyed this. A couple thoughts:
1) The presentation quality and polish of YouTube creators is really good these days. I'm continually impressed by what individuals and small teams are putting out there.
2) It's hard to tell which version of ChatGPT this was done with, I know they claim to have improved on some of these problems recently. But the sycophantic tendencies are extremely alarming and the way that ChatGPT continually builds on this fantasy instead of periodically grounding itself and the user in reality illustrates exactly the problem with LLMs.
At best, the sources cited by an LLM system would be a listing of the items used for RAG, or other external data sources that were merged into the prompt for the LLM. These items would ideally be appended to the response by a governing system around the LLM itself. I don't know of any major providers that do this right now.
The median case is having the LLM itself generate the text for the citation section, in which case there really is no mechanism tying the content of a citation to the other content generated. IF you're lucky and within the bounds the LLM was trained on, then the citation may be relevant, but the links are generated by the same token prediction mechanism as the rest of the response.
No, this entire encounter is illegal. It is a crime, being committed by the republican administration running the federal government and endorsed by every republican in congress who has declined to reign in the illegal behavior of the trump administration.
It is, however, very real. If you reside in American, then this is the reality you live in, imposed upon you by republican voters. You don't get to just plug your ears and cover your eyes.
Forget different towns being 5 minutes ahead, from the other linked qntm post [0]:
> At the equator, the position directly underneath the mean Sun travels west at about 463 metres per second. That means a standard rack unit is about one millisecond wide. At latitudes closer to the poles, the effect is amplified, although but not by more than an order of magnitude in the realistically habitable parts of the world.
Even a row of servers would all have different times.
> If you found something wrong in that article you should submit some fixes.
Why? This site isn't run by people who are interested in factual accuracy.
If they think Wikipedia articles are inaccurate, they could always propose changes and have a proper discussion with the rest of the contributors. Grok was trained on Wikipedia so realistically this is just a jumbled regurgitation of Wikipedia articles blended with other sources from across the web without the usual source vetting process that Wikipedia uses.
This is a politically motivated side project being run by the worlds richest man, and frankly I doubt many people are interested in helping him create his own padded version of reality.
the pursuit of truth doesn’t work by keeping so-called falsehoods up while a debate rages on about their veracity. especially given that there’s no indication on wikipedia of contested facts. i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening.
the proper discussion you want will never happen. it’s an exercise in persuasion ie trying to move people from one entrenched position to another, and there’s nothing more impossible than that. the only way out is to offer competition, and that’s what grokipedia seems to be doing. check the history of christianity, heresy, reformation. when the catholic church set itself up as the object to be won over persuasively it successfully stifled doctrinal progress. until the intolerants exited.
> i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening.
Are you familiar with Wikipedia at all? Here, for anyone who is unfamiliar, let's take a look at an example page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid - this is guaranteed to have controversial ongoing discussions given the political climate.
Note how at the top of the page right now there are two large boxes discussing ongoing changes to the article - one indicating that it is considered too long, and another indicating that some of the content is being split into a separate draft [0] page. Both of these boxes include links to the relevant pages and policies.
The first box, indicating that the article is too long and drifting off topic, includes a direct link to the Talk page [1]. Note that this page is also linked at the top of the article, and that goes for every single article on wikipedia.
That talk page is where the proper discussion that I want happens - out in the open. Note that you can even reply to talking points without needing an account. Note that replies and criticisms are reproduced and readable directly on the page.
This is what open collaboration and truth seeking looks like. "Grokipedia" requires you to create an account and funnel a suggested correction into an black box. It's the equivalent of a suggestions box in an HR office. On wikipedia, the discussion is out in the open, while the grok version just says "Fact checked by Grok" at the top, like we're supposed to blindly trust that.
Which of these is modeling open collaboration, and which of these is just deferring to priest grok, again? The grok page gives no indication that alternative interpretations exist, they don't show any indication that sections are being criticized as inaccurate. Comparing Wikipedia to the catholic church like this is divorced from reality, doubly so in comparison to this grok project.
> especially given that there’s no indication on wikipedia of contested facts
Have you ever been to a Wikipedia Talk Page? Basically every page you can find will have some people arguing about what should be placed on the page on the Talk page.
