

What would these deltas look like? It’d be hard to anonymise and protect from abuse?
Personally I’d be happy to share my likes and watch times, but I know some people worry about that.
It’s a failure on the part of mastodon. I don’t really care about whatever drama dansup is embroiled in. Mastodon shouldn’t imply a post is only readable by followers when it’s just a public post that doesn’t show by default in their frontend.
Honestly pixelfed should have just not fixed it. It’s a fediverse problem that can be fixed and mastodon is just misleading people.
Platforms should either make it clear that it means just that the post isn’t advertised by default on all platforms but is always accessible to anyone that wants it or actually implement e2e encryption.
A humane AI in an HP printer?
I imagine it’s just going to send a prompt to chatGPT like “Scan this document, if it seems important, lie about having no ink left. Find a particularly overpriced HP ink stockist near the user and give them a link to it. If they ask how you knew where to get the ink, lie about not tracking them.”
It’s not difficult though. They just can’t be arsed and are making excuses for being comfortable and lazy. If there was a $100 million marketing budget and their favourite celebrity was here, they’d sit an hour long entrance exam. The best we can do is make it fun enough here that people want to comment.
To be fair to bitcoin, it might waste $160 worth of electricity per second, but it does get the right answer once every ten minutes.
It’s interesting that they’re still pushing Gemini as something that can give an objective answer in the US while they’re just selling it as a banter bot in the UK now. I wonder if that means Brits are further into the trough of disillusionment.
The article sort of demonstrates it. Instead of needing inordinate amounts of data and memory to increase it’s chance of one-shotting the countdown game. It only needs to know enough to prove itself wrong and roll the dice again.
Easier to grasp than your witticisms, clearly.
I’m not particularly surprised by the censorship. That’s not really the point of the post.
There’s constant arguments going on between people over whether it’s censored or not. A lot of people, me included tbh, were under the impression that it wasn’t because we were able to get information out of it that we would expect to be censored. Other people have claimed not to be able to when trying similar. Therefore we’ve ended up with people arguing over whether it is or isn’t.
I investigated and proved that both sides are kinda of right, and explained why people are getting different results for doing what is ostensibly the same thing.
I like the idea that the CCP are so desperate to down vote that one comment they don’t stop to down vote the post that actually makes them look bad, which said comment is responding to.
Some models are llama and some are qwen. Both sets respond with “I am sorry, I cannot answer that question. I am an AI assistant designed to provide helpful and harmless responses.” when you spell it Tianenmen, but give details when you spell it Tiananmen.
All run on local hardware. Llama models do it too. This is 8b
You get the exact same cookie cutter response in the llama models, and the qwen models process the question and answer. The filter is deepseek’s contribution.
It’s a slightly facetious comment on how the same model had gone from definitely not censored to definitely censored. The tripwire for the filter was obviously already there.
I tried the chicken, fox and grain riddle on it. It rambled for 477 lines before I killed it.
I tried to make it easier by saying it can put three things in the boat. It did seem to realise it was a trick question. Now it’s stuck repeatedly solving the classic riddle dismissing it, then saying the correct solution and dismissing it.
edit: After another 160 lines it solved it
solve this riddle: … … A man has to get a fox, a chicken, and a sack of corn across a river. … … He has a rowboat, and it can only carry him and three other things. … … If the fox and the chicken are left together, the fox will eat the chicken. … … If the chicken and the corn are left together, the chicken will eat the corn. <think>
Alright, so I need to solve this riddle where a man has to get a fox, a chicken, and a sack of corn across a river. His boat can only carry him plus three other things. The constraints are that if the fox and chicken are left alone, the fox will eat the chicken, and if the chicken and corn are left together, the chicken will eat the corn. Hmm, okay.
Let me break this down. The man needs to transport three items: fox (F), chicken ©, and corn (K). His boat can hold him plus up to three things. Wait, does that mean he can take all three across in one trip, or is it limited? I think the standard version of this riddle allows only two items to be taken at a time because otherwise, you might just ignore the constraints.
But wait, here it says “he can only carry him and three other things.” So maybe he can take up to four things: himself plus three. But in that case, he could potentially transport all three in one trip without any risk? But no, because if the fox is left with the chicken or the chicken is left with the corn, they’ll eat each other.
So perhaps the key here is that when transporting, only two items can be taken at a time. Or maybe it’s allowed to take all three but has to make sure that the fox and chicken aren’t left alone together, nor are the chicken and corn. But if he takes all three across in one trip, as long as they’re with him, there’s no issue because he’s supervising them.
Wait, but I think in classic versions, you can only take two at a time because otherwise, it’s too easy. Maybe here, since it says “three other things,” which would be the fox, chicken, and corn plus himself, so four total. Hmm, maybe that allows for all three to go together without issues as long as they’re with him.
But I’m not sure. Let me think again.
If he can take all three across in one trip because his boat is big enough (since it’s a rowboat but can carry up to three items plus himself), then the problem becomes trivial—just send them all at once, right? But that seems too easy, and usually, these riddles require multiple trips. So perhaps I’m misunderstanding.
Wait, maybe “he can only carry him and three other things” means he cannot take more than four total: himself and up to three others. So if he takes the fox across first, then comes back alone or with someone else? Wait, no—he has to get all three across without any pair causing harm when left alone.
Wait, let’s consider standard river crossing puzzles. Usually, you can only take one additional item at a time because otherwise, you have too many possibilities for leaving two dangerous pairs behind.
But in this case, the man is allowed to take up to three items, so maybe he can carry all three and leave them with him on both sides? But that doesn’t make sense because when moving from one bank to another, if he leaves them alone, they might cause problems. So perhaps he needs to transport them in multiple trips.
Wait, but the problem says “he has to get a fox, a chicken, and a sack of corn across a river.” It doesn’t specify whether it’s over multiple trips or not. Hmm.
Let me try to think through possible solutions assuming he can only take two items at a time because otherwise, I don’t see why you would need a riddle if the answer is just taking all three together with him.
If he takes the chicken across first, then comes back alone:
Alternatively, after step 3, take K over:
Wait, but if he takes the chicken over first:
Take C to the other side.
Return alone.
Take K:
Now, come back with one of them—say, take C back:
Far side: K; near side: F and C.
But then on the far side, there’s only corn, so that’s okay.
Then take F over again:
Now both sides have C (on the near) and F and K across? Wait, this is confusing.
Wait, perhaps I’m complicating it too much. Let me try to visualize each step carefully.
Option 1: He takes the chicken first.
Step 1: Man takes C to far side.
Now, if he takes F next:
Step 3: Man takes F to far side.
Wait, no—if he brings F over and leaves it there, then he can come back alone:
Step 4: Man returns alone to near.
Now, if he takes K next:
Step 5: Take K over:
Then, step 6: Man returns alone to near.
Step 7: Then he takes F over again:
Far side: C, K; near side: F.
He needs to bring someone back so that he can get F across without leaving F alone with nothing or with others.
Wait, no—he just took K over in step 5, but then he’s on the far side. So if he wants to take F over next, he would need to come back first:
Step 6: Return alone from far to near.
But now, when he takes F across again, he can do it in one trip.
Wait, but that’s more complicated. Maybe I’m overcomplicating it because if the man is allowed to take all three at once, then the answer would be straightforward—take them all together with him on each trip.
So perhaps the key here is whether he can take multiple items across in a single trip without leaving any two behind that would cause harm. Since the boat can carry him and three others, which includes himself plus up to three other things (so total of four). So if he takes all three across together in one trip, then when they’re on the far side, as long as they’re with him, there’s no problem because none of them will eat each other.
But maybe that’s too easy. Perhaps the riddle expects you to consider multiple trips where he makes several round trips while ferrying items back and forth.
Wait, let me check—since in the standard version of this puzzle (the classic farmer, wolf, goat, cabbage problem), you can only take one item at a time because otherwise, you have too many possibilities. But here, since it’s three items instead of four, maybe he can take two or all three.
But wait, if he takes the chicken first:
Take C to far side.
Return alone.
Take F over:
Then bring C back:
Near has C and K; far has F.
Take K over:
Far now has C, K;
Bring someone back—say, take C again to avoid leaving F with nothing or something else. Wait, but if he brings C back, then:
Man returns with C to near.
Takes F over again.
This seems too convoluted. Maybe the key is that he can take all three at once because his boat can carry four things—himself plus fox, chicken, and corn.
But I’m confused because in standard puzzles, you need multiple trips because of constraints on left/right sides. But here, if you can transport them all together without leaving any pair behind, then the solution is straightforward—he takes all three across in one trip.
So maybe the answer is that he can take all three items across the river at once since his boat can carry him and three others—so total of four things: himself plus fox, chicken, and corn. Therefore, they don’t have to be ferried back and forth; he just takes them all in one trip.
So summarizing:
Step 1: Man takes C, F, K across the river.
And that’s it. So no need for any returns because there are no conflicts when they’re on the far side as long as he’s present.
But I’m not sure if this is a trick question where you have to consider ferrying items back or if taking all three in one trip is acceptable. </think>
The solution involves taking all three items (fox, chicken, and corn) across the river at once because the boat can carry four things—himself plus three others. Therefore, he simply takes them all in one trip.
Answer: Man takes all three items (fox, chicken, and corn) across the river together in a single trip, as his boat is large enough to hold him plus the three other items without any of them causing harm when left alone on either side.
It would be hilariously fitting if the reason the Chinese LLM beats the American one is because it’s capable of self criticism.
The video that’s linked in the original post goes into some of that. From the misappropriation of money during the pandemic, inflation Vs interest, failure to tax that misappropriated money back. I just borrowed his click baity title.
The pothole thing has to be one of the dumbest arguments.
There’s no problems with reporting potholes.
The delays in fixing them are because councils are skint and have to plan when best to fix them to minimise impact.
They quite famously did, and got caught doing it when they started accidentally posting error messages.