Jasmine rice. Makes a huge difference if you like white rice. Tastes like from a restaurant and pleasantly sticky.

Absolutely. It’s why asking it for facts is inherently bad. It can’t retain information, it is trained to give output shaped like an answer. It’s pretty good at things that don’t have a specific answer (I’ll never write another cover letter thank blob).

Now, if someone were to have the good sense to have some kind of lookup to inject correct information between the prompt and the output, we’d be cooking with gas. But that’s really human labor intensive and all the tech bros are trying to avoid that.

Gradient descent is a common algorithm in machine learning (AI* is a subset of machine learning algorithms). It refers to using math to determine how wrong an answer is in a particular direction and adjusting the algorithm to be less wrong using that information.

That seems like a perfectly normal phrase…

Did you have my professor for intro to C? This guy was well known for failing people for plagiarism on projects where the task was basically “hello world”. And he disallowed using if/else for the first month of class.

I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you’re uninformed about how things work.

Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?

Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He’s so damned slippery I’m not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he’s in jail.

But yeah, they did make up their minds there.

Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they’ve found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he’s guilty, but that it’s worth looking into.

Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn’t exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes (“Only stupid people pay taxes” comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.

Yes, holding a person accountable for their crimes (maybe, jury is still out) is attacking them…

Unless you’re talking media coverage. Cause we all know that the media is an arm of the government…