Irrelevant in the face of established cannon. If you're going to make an in-universe argument then you have to stay inside the magic circle while making it.

This is like arguing Star Trek wrap drives wouldn't work because our current understanding of physics means Alcubierre drives are impossible to operate. You're applying a real-world understanding to a fictional universe that has written that part of reality away (for whatever reason).

The only point such an argument makes is that the arguer is ignorant of the source material.

I've seen the evidence of the bird's home and, while compelling, I remain unconvinced this is an owl.

Have you happened to observe the beast hunting, capturing prey, or eating? Presenting that evidence may clear things up for me.

You don't understand because you're either not paying attention or because you're trolling.

Random would be output like this:

Ostrich maypole dandy ironic. Great cucumber zebra!

Or this:

fhsjarbskzkdbsjzb kOdbg zkakfiebwkl

Random would be a password generator. Random would be utter nonsense. Incoherent. That's not what LLMs produce.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I agree that LLMs do not understand what it is they are predicting. At least no more than any other computer program "understands" its output. Which is to say: they are not conscious beings experiencing things.

This doesn't mean LLM output is random. It means they aren't thinking persons. You may have confused random with non-deterministic. LLMs are complex guessing machines that require a fudge-factor to produce meaningfully useful output. If the guesses were fully random then they'd have a significantly narrower field of practical applications.

Which means this image has to be of an enthusiast's collection because Crystal Pepsi was only manufactured '92-'94 (and again briefly in 2016 and then again as a batch of 300 in 2022 during a promotional / competition).

It's like a 90s themed couch potato weekend for time travelers.

Plucking the feathers out of your teeth.

You'll never see calamari the same way again.

I'm not suggesting people engaged in evil do not deserve ire. Punch Nazis. Full stop. Neither am I suggesting we tread gingerly lest we offend. I'm asserting that constructive responses toward those open to correction align with our stated ideals and that destructive attacks which merely stroke the ego of the attacker do not.

We should not want those lost to the cult of MAGA to self-flagelate and apologize because this is not about them and words are cheap. They need to see the harm they've helped cause and start actively counter-acting that harm.

This meme is specifically directed at those who are realizing they've been conned. When someone breaks from delusion, especially delusion that has been central to identity, sharing that with anyone requires vulnerability. If hypocrisy is worth avoiding at all then its value increases wildly around such shared crossroads.

Salt in the wound only benefits the salter who enjoys inflicting useless pain in others. We ought to be better than that. Inability to do so cannot justify the indulgence of cruelty.

i.e., being tired of their bullshit confers no license to vindictive prejudicial lashings.

While I understand the sentiment (and harbor it myself) this sort of "I'm rubbing your face in it" rhetoric does nothing constructive. It isn't propaganda for would-be Trump cult survivors. It's mere pandering to those on the right side of history by sneering at "the other".

If I saw a crack in any of my MAGA-cult relative's façades or genuine walls I would leap at the opportunity to commiserate as an entry point to more reality-alignment discussion and see how far I could get.

People must stop doing harm before being taken back in as comrades but they're still human being who deserve, and must be allowed by society, the opportunity to improve themselves and their behavior.

Disallowing that leads to much worse alternatives. Barring genuine sociopathy: we seek, and are often driven by, acceptance. It's part of what soliciters of right-wing ideologies (e.g., manosphere) exploit, especially with young men, to convince them alignment with fascist theory as a way of life emotionally and sociopolitically must be within their best interest.

But let's even go so far as to discard empathy and sentiment for a moment. If we set our humanity aside and consider this strategically (transactionally) then I see this as an opportunity to potentially mitigate harm. I am going to seize that advantage. Even if I've lost hope for that particular cultist. Taking the time to be supportive of (what may only ever turn out to be) a lapse in otherwise perpetual cognitive misfire may divert their path from "worst outcome" to "unacceptable but not an active threat". I cannot effectively work with material if I find the material revolting.

I think even this colder perspective pushes us closer toward exercising empathy though. Because that's the pit in my stomach that churned injustice into compulsion for radical action. The deep-seated stark truth that every feeling creature deserves respect and the opportunity to create safety together. That the promises of authoritarian rhetoric are a perversion of literal civilization.

At possibly its most blunt and mundane: "I don't want other people abusing me, and; if I think I am the same thing other people are then it's not going to feel good, or be reasonable, for me to abuse others.

Sneering is for snobs. The snobbish turn their nose at impure things because of, at least in part, their disgust of what's stained them. Transposed onto persons directly that disgust reduces one or some of us to merely a point on which one may anchor one's rage.

I won't do that. Both because it offers no advantage in advancing even triage to response, let alone treatment, and because I find it distasteful, at best, without effort.

How so?

It's about surveillance not safety. Neglecting to include any detail in the article about what features of EAC they can't enable while including Linux platforms does a serious disservice to the reader.

I want to focus on a particular functional aspect of this: remembering what you've been exposed to.

The best method is rewriting it in your own words by hand. If that seems too daunting then typing is better than nothing but the brain-body connection while moving langauge to script by hand is the real magic.

If you are having trouble remembering what you've been exposed to, and if you want to transform exposure to information into real knowledge, then re-writing it in you own words by hand is the best way to start doing that.

One of the reasons you are not retaining information is because your LLM dependence makes it trivial to apply solutions to problems without understanding either.

Re-learning task independence is going to require effort against friction you are no longer accustomed to. While I agree with many of the other comments here that cutting LLMs out entirely is ideal I also understand addiction and dependence. If you can start writing down what you are learning and using your own notes to answer your questions that may be a helpful starting point for re-establishing your independence and eventually cutting LLMs out of your life entirely.

Secondary suggestion: Read books.