It’s also stupid to waste resources to run an inefficient LLM that a regular search and a few minutes of time, along with like a bite of an apple worth of energy, could easily handle.

From what I can tell, running an LLM isn’t really all that energy intensive, it’s the training that takes loads of energy. And it’s not like regular searches don’t use loads of energy to initially index web results.

And this also ignores the gap between having a question, and knowing how to search for the answer. You might not even know where to start. Maybe you can search a vague question, but you’re essentially hoping that somewhere in the first few results is a relevant discussion to get you on the right path. GPT, I find, is more efficient for getting from vague questions to more directed queries.

After all that, you’re going to need to check all those sources chatGPT used anyways, so how much time is it really saving you? At least with Wikipedia I know other people have looked at the same things I’m looking at, and a small percentage of those people will actually correct errors.

I find this attitude much more troubling than responsible LLM use. You should not be trusting tertiary sources, no matter how good their track record, you should be checking the sources used by Wikipedia too. You should always be checking your sources.

Many people aren’t using it as a valid research aid like you point out, they’re just pasting directly out of it onto the internet.

That’s beyond the scope of my argument, and not really much worse than pasting directly from any tertiary source.

I’m going to keep it 100%, I’m probably never going to pirate again. It was fine when I was young and broke and couldn’t think of anything better to do than watching stuff. But my free time and appetite for shows and movies have plummeted, and I have a decent income. I don’t mind paying a couple bucks to not have to worry about it on the extremely rare occasions I feel like watching something, and if I’m going to watch something it’s because it’s really good; I’d rather the creators get some kickback and streaming services have somewhat accurate metrics about content popularity so those creators are more likely to get to make future content.

Just using the “information” it regurgitates isn’t very useful, which is why I didn’t recommend doing that. Whether the information summarized by Wikipedia and ChatGPT is accurate really isn’t important, you use those tools to find primary sources.

My ex and I broke up before getting back together, we were not back together for very long.

My wife and I talked about breaking up a few times, but after talking it through we decided it wasn’t what either of us wanted and we resolved to address the issue that got us there.

Kettlebells are focused on compound exercises. I don’t know where you came up with this:

If dumbbells aren’t available, kettlebells are a poor substitute for dumbbells, whereas if kettlebells aren’t available and dumbbells are, dumbbells are an OK substitute for kettlebells.

I can’t think of any dumbbell exercises that couldn’t use a kettlebell if it’s all you had, but dumbbells are not well suited at all to kettlebell exercises.

And I don’t know why you hate swings, they’re a fantastic way to build squat form.

Not waaaaay more than you’d think though, is my point

I thought it was pretty obvious after like 10%?

You say that, but every piracy site I’ve ever seen was plastered in ads.

You don’t need to press that hard at all. It’s more a light scrape than anything. It’s never been an issue for me.

Typewriter style is a valid subset of chomping.

What other option is there? Lick all the chocolate off and then eat the wafers separately?

Don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

ChatGPT is a moderately useful tertiary source. Quoting Wikipedia isn’t research, but using Wikipedia to find primary sources and reading those is a good faith effort. Likewise, asking ChatGPT in and of itself isn’t research, but it can be a valid research aid if you use it to find relevant primary sources.

Maybe you’re pressing too hard?

Yes, I know, that’s why I used it as an overly-reductive example. I’m saying you can’t just easily explain your technique. Even if you identify the leading style, a good photo is going to incorporate a number of principles and techniques. That’s why my alternative was launching into a Photography 101 lesson.

When someone asks you what equipment you use, they probably fall into one of two camps:

-They’re making smalltalk about your hobby, in which case again, that opens the door to a more in depth conversation if that’s the vibe. “I used X camera with Y lens, which works really well with this kind of framing at these settings.” You can even skip the equipment entirely and just focus on a particular effect and how you achieved it, explaining how it’s more to do with lens settings and composition than a specific camera.

-They’re interested in the hobby themselves, and looking for information that will inform what kind of equipment they will start using. A good photographer can make use of a disposable camera, but someone starting off needs a bit of guidance to find equipment that is good enough for serious work, but cheap enough for an entry level enthusiast.

Never had a problem. Lint on a dry ass was always way worse.

I don’t think anyone “just” uses a bidet. I follow up with a couple wipes, it’s just more a finishing move than the whole strategy.

Yeah, when he said “He said Free Luigi!”, I was like, “…and?”

I don’t get about bidets: How do you know you’re clean

Precisely my question to those who don’t use them

lean-to

Start the fire however you want, but with a big enough log on the side to support new logs so they don’t smother the fire