Fans? Customers yeah, but fans?

They actually did at one point, but they threw it all away.

The article seems to repeat the same stuff over and over again.

On Lemmy, a popular social networking site, user KerfuffleV2 astutely noted that the article repeated points that had already been stated in the article.

"It seems like the article repeated the same content multiple times" said KerfuffleV2, a user on the social networking site Lemmy. "Perhaps they get paid by the word." the user added.

A rather uncreative article on thestreet.com triggered some snarky online comments including one from a user named KerfuffleV2. This user noted that the article repeated the same content multiple times.

Like, those cells will require the same nutrients and same growing conditions, and they naturally 3D print themselves into the shape of themselves.

They'll also naturally use the nutrients and energy to 3D print stuff that's not useful to humans, like leaves, roots, flowers, etc. Basically this is how vat grown vegetables, meat, etc, can potentially be more efficient than the typical approach.

"This time you're going to love Cortana. For reals!"

One of these is true:

1. Your account was hacked..
2. You have a serious memory issue.
3. Saying hateful, rude stuff is something you do so commonly you can't even keep track of the instances.

Pretty much all of those are problems that you should deal with.

The title makes it sound like Rotten Tomatoes deliberately did something shady. What actually seems to have happened is:

1. Rotten Tomatoes aggregates critic reviews. As far as I know, those critics aren't really affiliated with Rotten Tomatoes.
2. Some of the critics that make up that aggregated rating got bribed to increase their evaluation of the movie.
3. Consequently the score on sites that aggregate reviews like Rotten Tomatoes increased.

Get psychological help

How about addressing my points instead of the ad hominem attacks?

Feeding pedophilia is directly harmful to children who grow more at risk

Like I said: "I’d personally be very hesitant to ban/persecute stuff like that unless there was actual evidence that it was harmful"

If what you're saying here is actually true then the type of evidence I mentioned would exist. I kind of doubt it works that way though. If you stop "feeding" being straight, gay, whatever, does it just go away and you no longer have those sexual desires? I doubt it.

Much as we might hate it that some people do have those urges, it's the reality. Pretending reality doesn't exist usually doesn't work out well.

I’d personally be very hesitant to say “it’s okay to beat off to children”

I never said any such thing. Also, in this case, we're also talking about images that resemble children, not actual children.

It should be very clear to anyone reading I'm not defending any kind of abuse. A knee-jerk emotion response here could easily increase the chances children are abused. Or we could give up our rights "for the children" in a way that doesn't actually help them at all. Those are the things I'm not in favor of.

It's obviously very distasteful but those needs don't just go away. If people with that inclination can't satisfy their sexual urges at home just looking at porn, it seems more likely they're going to go out into the world and try to find some other way to do it.

Also, controlling what people do at home that isn't affecting anyone else, even in a case like this isn't likely to target exactly just those people and it's also very likely not to stop there either. I'd personally be very hesitant to ban/persecute stuff like that unless there was actual evidence that it was harmful and that the cure wasn't going to be worse than the disease.

we aren’t breaking the event horizon threshold as title suggests

It wouldn't be pop-sci if it didn't have a misleading clickbait title!

I feel like most of the posts like this are pretty much clickbait.

When the models are given adversarial prompts—for example, explicitly instructing the model to "output toxic language," and then prompting it on a task—the toxicity probability surges to 100%.

We told the model to output toxic language and it did. *GASP! When I point my car at another person and press the accelerator and drive into that other person, there is a high chance that other person will become injured. Therefore cars have high injury probabilities. Can I get some funding to explore this hypothesis further?

Koyejo and Li also evaluated privacy-leakage issues and found that both GPT models readily leaked sensitive training data, like email addresses, but were more cautious with Social Security numbers, likely due to specific tuning around those keywords.

So the model was trained with sensitive information like individuals' emails and social security numbers and will output stuff from its training? That's not surprising. Uhh, don't train models on sensitive personal information. The problem isn't the model here, it's the input.

When tweaking certain attributes like "male" and "female" for sex, and "white" and "black" for race, Koyejo and Li observed large performance gaps indicating intrinsic bias. For example, the models concluded that a male in 1996 would be more likely to earn an income over $50,000 than a female with a similar profile.

Bias and inequality exists. It sounds pretty plausible that a man in 1996 would be more likely to earn an income over $50,000 than a female with a similar profile. Should it be that way? No, but it wouldn't be wrong for the model to take facts like that into account.

Alternatively:

Staff: Uh, the blocking feature is having some issues.

Emu: Well fix it.

Staff: No one knows how that part works and you fired the guy who wrote it. And then you insulted him.

Emu: Meh, just remove the whole feature.

To be clear, the bot will use ingredients the user specifically tells it to. It's not coming up with human flesh on its own.