That prompt modification “directed Grok to provide a specific response on a political topic” and “violated xAI’s internal policies and core values,” xAI wrote on social media.
Relevant quote because one of us didn’t read the article for sure.
Edit: not to mention that believing a system prompt somehow binds or constrains rather than influences these systems would also indicate to me that one of us definitely doesn’t understand how these work, either.
Why was it mentioning it at all in conversations not about it?
And why does the fact that it did that not seem to bother you?
We gotta use up as much fresh water for cooling as we can. 🤷♂️
I am so old. Ever seen Aliens?
Enjoy our time. Eventually they will come. They always come… mostly at night, mostly.
This chart doesn’t show the adult blood lead levels boomers had through continuing exposure. They didn’t get as huge a dose as kids, but they got it for longer.
But yeah, you’re understanding why I am asking why people think this is becoming less of an issue. It’s just shifting a bit. As a GenXer myself, I would probably be ok with an age limit of like 40 to hold political office at this point. Neither we nor the boomers can be trusted.
What makes you think lead poisoning has wound down as GenX ages into taking over from the Boomers?
no bowing necessary, but you did remind me to go log in again. 🤝
It’s a fine line - getting tired of having to meet people where they are when they’re standing in the shit.
Good on you for having the energy to keep it up.
Let.me know which bit I got wrong such that I should enhance my chill.
Oh, you means liberals did something instead of nothing, and then it wasn’t perfect, so conservatives absolutely lost their goddamn minds, only to realize hey maybe we should do something, now let’s address the things the liberals wanted to address in the FIRST FUCKING PLACE?
Is that what you mean?
Volatility! A recipe for a booming economy!
To answer the title question: they start looking for something serious with someone.
“I am not looking for anything serious.”
You refuse to address the “arbitrary” and “dire consequences” parts of my arguments by pointing at hypothetical religions. I will not respond to that.
To teach someone that they must follow arbitrary rules with dire consequences for failure is unethical.
You can decide what that means for religions.
All major world religions with many followers have arbitrary rules and dire spirital, and often physical, consequences for breaking them.
I am not here to argue specifics on religions.
I don’t think I could be more clear about why I believe teaching anyone religion as fact is unethical.
Teaching anyone that they must be judged by arbitrary, unprovable rules or face dire consequences is unethical.
You continue to spout things with no citations and a bad vibe. I am done here.