Perfect example of a blatantly intellectualy dishonest argument right here. Show me how Pokemon cards were designed to burn down a house.

Right? I mean, why would someone who shot their spouse do anything irrational?

Let’s take a look at the old ssd…

C:\Program Files (x86)\Epic Games
C:\Program Files (x86)\GOG Galaxy
C:\Program Files (x86)\Hearthstone
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\

etcetera

owns 47 guns, 26,000 rounds -> shoots wife

Never woulda seen that coming! Must be the booze!

In C:\Program Files? Or C:\Program Files (x86)?

you wouldn’t call yourself a chef, or serve it to anyone who expected “gourmet shit”.

Hell yes I would!

They got called out on all their bullshit, in front of the staff they were trying to take advantage of.

Snakes with crossbows.

It sounds like you just invented elections.

I bought a Xiaomi A3 about four years ago. I’m still using it now but my experience has been mixed.

Two years in, my carrier told me I had to switch phones because it didn’t support a bunch of technology they now require. It in fact supported everything including all the correct GSM bands, but ATT was now operating on a whitelist to which my phone did not belong, and they would not produce an explanation as to why. I was able to switch to T-Mobile at a reduced rate, but I find the coverage leaves much to be desired by comparison.

Just after going through a few examples in my head, the difficulty becomes somewhat more apparent. let’s start with 3. This is odd, so 3(3)+1 = 10. 10 is even so we have 10/2=5.

By this point my intuition tells me that we don’t have a very obvious pattern that we can use to decide whether the function will output 4, 2, or 1 by recursively applying the function to its own output, other than the fact that every other number that we try appears to result in this pattern. We could possibly reduce the problem to whether we can guess that the function will eventually output a power of 2, but that doesn’t sound to me like it makes things much easier.

If I had no idea whether a proof existed, I would guess that it may, but that it is non-trivial. Or at least my college math courses did not prepare me to find one. Since it looks like plenty of professional mathematicians have struggled with it, I have no doubt that if a proof exists it is non-trivial.

Ethern’t.

Between the lines of “I don’t want to” reads “I have to”, which is easily disputed if said out loud.

It’s like… 2001 shareware shitpost flavored.

As someone who didn’t have disposable income until I was in my thirties, I had a lot of catching up to do and the people there helped me out a lot.

Take 'im away, toys.

Might be right but in my experience a lack of skill in conversing with AI is a much greater factor in determining it’s usefulness. It’s almost always going to defer to the user. It’s like when someone is dealing with tech support and they tell them to try turning it off and on again. If that really is the solution, and the user insists that it is not, CGPT is going to make something up just to appease the user’s request.

Users have to know that CGPT isn’t magic. How they behave affects how it behaves. Kind of like talking to actual people, which is what it’s essentially trying to simulate.