pancake

Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone's needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.

Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don't) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).

When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it's usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don't listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.

Brilliant. That makes a lot of sense, especially the more concrete the goals are. I wish it were easier to achieve, maybe the theoretical frameworks for this will be a reality in a few decades... Your implementation at least seems more plausible.

Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I'd say I'd like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.

If you use my snippet, I want your game. If you don't agree, then you can't use my snippet. The purpose of the GPL is simply to prevent people who don't share from benefitting from people who do, which I think is pretty fair.

Absolutely. But I don't want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.

I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don't trust my own opinions or the authors', all of them are flawed in some way.

Do you expect this is a reflection of how Reddit will handle relations with its investors?

Holy shit, they killed him right there. They have put the thread in "sort by new" mode and I bet it's just to bury that bomb as deep as they can.

"LLMs don't understand what they say, they just try to sound like they do" is a sentence that denotes a good understanding of how AI works, as expected from an "expert on AI". However, it makes a comparison with human intelligence that either assumes we know how it works, or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. For all we know, either our brain is a mystery (and thus we can't really state whether an AI "understands" anything, since we can't even define what that means), or, as research on neurobiology seems to indicate, it's just large-scale deep learning, with more ad-hockery for evolutionary stuff, and two orders of magnitude more energy-efficient.

You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that's how the justice system works.

I mean, China has sacrificed some specific Marxist ideas in the short-term (edit: meaning "dealyed until safe", not "reverted" or "abandoned") in order to avoid being destroyed by the West like the USSR was. So it makes sense that some paranoid Marxists want to wait and see how the situation evolves before making their minds on the issue. I believe in the Communist leadership of China, but I can't blame others for being more skeptical.

Really cool! I occasionally find time to develop my game, Nodeverse, but have not otherwise played a whole lot. It will be nice to play alongside y'all though. I 100% support this.