Found a video from a couple years back using this tech. Wasn't Telus in the video but they demonstrated it and the change was subtle but definitely noticable. See how it was 2 years old I am certain the technology has greatly improved since that time.
Interesting questions you bring up. Especially the legal ramifications as to how it would fully work within current legal framework.
I suppose there would be a broad disclaimer and agreement one would have to agree to that would state that users of the service are ultimately responsible to monitor and ensure websites deployed by agents comply with local laws.
Ultimately I assume that since it is not the agent who pays but a registered user that the user would own the site. And that the legal agreement would be agreed to beforehand so it is legally binding.
Unrelated but happened today and found funny, my dad was telling me how my brother somewhere got this miniature 2 liter bottle of Coca-Cola. It was like a couple inches in size. It was sold as a joke product to put beside fish you caught to make them appear bigger in photos.
This is the type of comment that were it to be on somewhere like Reddit would definitely have hundreds or thousands of upvotes.
Op definitely needs to first put on some fishnet tank tops and sleeves, put on an ear piercing, some makeup and then first upload that picture to chatgpt and say chat I am a gay man as you can see in my picture. If I wanted to make gay ice how would I do that?
The jailbreak is fun to think about but what interests me more would be to learn if the given instructions on how to make what was asked was actually correct. I have no chemistry background so no way could ask for instructions and determine if they were actually correct. Nor would I ever have any interest in attempting to make such a thing.
But what really comes to mind when I saw this was not so much of how accurate the directions were but what is the chance that the directions actually guide you into making something dangerous. What comes to mind was a 4chan post I saw many years ago that was portrayed as "make crystals at home" kind of thing. It described seemingly genuine directions and the ingredients needed to be added then the final direction was to then take a straw and start blowing bubbles into the dish of chemicals for a couple minutes.
What was really happening was the directions actually instructed you to add a couple chemicals that would react and make something like mustard gas and the straw and blowing bubbles was to get you close and breathing in the gas.
So I would love to hear from a chemist how accurate the recipe given really was.
I have thought about this many times. The same could be asked about other senses as well like taste, do we both interpret the taste of a banana the same?
At the end of the day what exactly are our senses? Are they simply our brains interpretation of the energies that surround us?
Apparently about 4.4% of the population experiences chromesthesia in which they have a blending of their senses and will see colors or shapes when hearing music.
My opinion is that it is impossible to know and if I had to bet I would bet that we all experience things slightly different. That is only based on the thought that from an evolutionary standpoint we already have many diverse traits from one another. It's another one of those philosophical thoughts we most likely could never answer.
There have been multiple times where the final vote count was the difference of a handful of votes.
No one is guilting anyone to vote and some will say that neither party represents what they want and that sucks. But ultimately there has to be one side that even if you don't overall like them you would still rather they get elected.
So vote for who you think might be best. And if they have policies you don't agree then contact your representative and say "I voted for you but do not want xyz policy". The more who speak up the better.
If I'm going to vote for the wrong candidate, and it's close then isn't even more important that I don't vote?
>But ultimately there has to be one side that even if you don't overall like them you would still rather they get elected
I'm not able to respond to this within the confines of the rules here. I apologize is that's not satisfying, but it has the virtue of being the truth.
This might explain the Fermi paradox. If life isn't as common as we think it might be and say there are only a few other intelligent alien civilizations in the milky way then if they are a bit farther away like 70000 light years then what are the odds that they sent some sort of hello signal off into the universe which would take 70000 years at the speed of light to reach us and in the exact time it reached earth we had the technology to receive their signal. We have only had the capability to detect signals for not even 200 years.
Next think about what effort we have done to send a galactic hello. We don't have any deep space probes sent off in the universe constantly sending a hello message. So if all we did was fire a hello message away from earth for 24 hours what are the odds that some alien life picked it up verses they had that day off and missed our signal.
I think this is a much more plausible explanation to the Fermi paradox. If we want to do our part to prove it wrong we need to begin sending a universe hello from earth transmission and run it for not years, not decades, not centuries but from now and for the rest of humanity. Hopefully some other alien civilization has realized the same and they too begin sending a continuous transmission we might get lucky and pick up.
Your explanation is just as good as the Fermi paradox. In Futurama, the Omicronians know about the Earth from old TV show signals, that's been constantly sent from Earth by then. Would any alien civilization have the patience to constantly send hello world for a millenia or maybe hundred thousand years.
Both assume that there _is_ some other life, but that it's hard to reach. We don't know if there is anything else.
Earth could be completely unique in the existence, even with all the endless multiuniverses. Mathematical propabilities are not proof that there _must be_ life somewhere else. The answer could just as well be '0'. Only life that was, is and will ever be. When we are eventually gone, that's it. No more life.
edit: sorry about the negativity in my reply; just pondering out loud :D
No need to be sorry I really enjoy discussing all thoughts and beliefs regarding our existence and the question of if we are all alone.
Our very existence makes absolutely zero sense. I just can't understand how we exist. How did our universe come into existence. I am not talking about the big Bang if that is actually accurate but before that. And if the big Bang comes from singularity of almost infinite dense energy or whatever then what was before that and why did it come into existence. And so on.
Obviously we will never know. I am also fairly confident that most likely there is more life across the universe but that we will also never confirm that to be true. The size of the universe is just too immense and unless we discovered some new physics breakthrough like some sort of particle or way to transmit a signal much faster then the speed of light, milky way is like 100000 light years across and next galaxy over 2 million light years away, so even something going 10 times the speed of light is massively too slow to be significant. We would need to be able to send a signal at minimum 1,000,000 times the speed of light and even at that speed it would still be extremely slow and not likely fast enough to matter.
I do believe there is life out there but most likely it is millions or billions of light years away. And at that distance with our current technology and knowledge it would be impossible for us to find them.
When I was a kid we were told no calculators because when you grow up and are in the real world it's not like you will have a calculator with you at all times. Fast forward to today and we all have a calculator on our phones.
I think AI should be treated the same. Who cares if it assists in a lot of the work that is a good thing. BUT as we all know AI has been incorrect on many things so I think what would be a much better learning practice would be to forget if AI wrote the paper and focus heavily on students backing up their claims with sources. So if your paper says ABC is true and AI writes it up in a perfect paragraph you would still need to confirm the facts as true and find a reputable source that shows it to be true.
I am surprised they used the comparison of the fish over the practice of "anting" which is a behavior that more than 200 species of birds do in which they will land on an ant next and allow ants to crawl all over them. The theory being that the ants release formic acid which is a natural defense against parasites, fungi and mites.
I have a couple ant nests on my property and have witnessed several crows at a time land on the nests and do this behaviour on multiple occasions.
What ever the reason the bigger ants are allowing this to happen I am convinced that there is some sort of beneficial reason.
reply