i don't understand the question – are you asking what makes arbitrary the rule “people who suffered harm because they followed an advice on the internet do not deserve to survive” ?
mawhrin
joined 2 years ago
it's not darwinism, what you're playing with is casual eugenics (you clearly don't value life of certain – arbitrarily chosen – people, and are fine with them suffering harm); don't. there's nothing good waiting for you on that path.
i understand the spirit, but putting out harmful disinformation is not a good method to combat the large language model land grab we're seeing right now.
for people who thought this might not be related to the llm brainworms, the reasoning of the iterm2 author for inclusion of the feature (when promptedy by @gerikson@awful.systems) :
I got a number of requests. I also got tired of copy-pasting things to ChatGPT. Usually if I find a feature useful, other people do, too.
ah. well, my commiserations, the us seems to thrive on pitting people against each other.
anyways, my point is that usenet had every type of crank you can see these days on twitter. this is not new.
never been to the usenet, i see.
it doesn't. that's why we're calling it “spicy autocompletion” .
yes. and you wouldn't believe¹ what's in the replies when you make this simple and obvious statement.
¹ who i am kidding. of course you know.
do read up a little on how the large language models work before coming here to mansplain, would you kindly?
i made a point.
also, may i advise the esteemed gentleman to not partake in the behaviour depicted in the wondermark plate № 1062?
…and i told that person that nothing good is waiting on that path.