But do you love them?

It doesn’t reason, and it doesn’t actually know any information.

What it excels at is giving plausible sounding averages of texts, and if you think about how little the average person knows you should be abhorred.

Also, where people typically can reason enough to make the answer internally consistent or even relevant within a domain, LLMs offer a polished version of the disjointed amalgamation of all the platitudes or otherwise commonly repeated phrases in the training data.

Basically, you can’t trust the information to be right, insightful or even unpoisoned, while sabotaging your strategies and systems to sift information from noise.

EtA: All for the low low cost of personal computing, power scarcity and drought.

That’s one way to escape Epstein’s island.

It’s 212 % of the hot, how else can there be more hot than all the hot? It’s gotta be all the hot from at least the next couple of rooms, might be everywhere, depends on how much hot is hogged by the oven I’d wager.

ITT: Water requires over double of all the hot just to boil.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

So then the correct interpretation is that women are not to speak over men, at least in matters within the domain of the faith? And as such the OP stands at face value, no?

Ah, I read you as saying that the verse is to be taken as only relevant to Timothy. If it does indeed inform how to run Christian churches as part of the official Word, they should be followed, no?

Or is the argument that they only inform overall sect marketing strategy, just as Leviticus should only pertain if you’re to enter a church? (As it was God’s commands for Israelites to be in the presence of God)

(Let’s set aside the discussion on how to interpret context, as each denomination seem to have their own and seldom any actual historical methodology in how to form that context.)

So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?

deleted by creator

Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?

Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.

Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?

How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?

I was expecting Slavic Superman to sweep the table when the shots came out.

I just learnt the difference, an em-dash is as long as an m and used for other things than the shorter en-dash (as long as an n).

Em-dashes are more common in literature, which a lot of AI is trained on, rather than online speak where it’s annoying and difficult to notice the difference between - and — (and not to be confused with –).

And yet, plenty of memes to be had, shared, created, evolved and enjoyed.

Seems a skill issue?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

You’re still viewing it from today’s perspective. We distinguish natural philosophy from chemistry, physics, etc. - they did not.

They did however call natural philosophy “Physics”. From their perspective all our fields fit under physics, except for applied science which fits under crafting (as natural philosophy devalued empiricism).

The Greek very much had a concept of Physics.

The word physics comes from the Latin physica (‘study of nature’), which itself is a borrowing of the Greek φυσική (phusikḗ ‘natural science’), a term derived from φύσις (phúsis ‘origin, nature, property’) (Wikipedia)

Also note that Aristotelian physics was the dominant paradigm in Europe almost until Newton.

There’s an argument to be had that engineering didn’t exist as a science until recently. Several of the more famous engineering treatises name it as crafting.