Does the term ‘safe and effective’ have a legal meaning/definition in relation to pharmaceutical drugs? I ask this because in order to sue a drug company for a drug-related/caused injury, presumably the burden of proof would have to overcome a claim of safety and effectiveness in order to prove negligence or fraud? In other words, one cannot sue for injury unless there is an implied claim that the drug will not cause injury any more than a car, ladder or power saw?
For me that was an informative read. I understand that we humans must seek to avoid strengthening systems that are antihuman by their very nature. (Though they have no nature only artifice). So Dan, your response made sense to me. Tim, was that an actual encounter you had with such a system? The circular logic based on flawed assumptions was infuriating.
Please, support human beings - if you are a living human being yourself.
By asking the Harvesting Automated Computerized Knowledge Systems (HACKS, commonly known as “AI”) ANY questions, you give it open-text suggestions where its designers should make most efforts. If you do it for fun or due to lack of awareness, that’s understandable. Irrespective of motivations, it is always an act of betrayal of human beings, disclosing to merciless machines how we think and what is most important to us.
“Talking” to HACKS doesn’t have any benefits. You will not learn what HACKS knows, because it is constantly being modified and updated with each new input. It doesn’t know anything, and it doesn’t learn anything - it is merely a mechanism to harvest human minds, collect the products of human thinking, and to generate master profiles for out basic cognitive styles.
In short, you are wasting your human time and potential, readers who decide to read it will waste their human time and potential. The only winner in this is the HACKS system. Calling it “intelligence” is another betrayal of the human mind.
Be human, support human beings.
Do not glorify machines, do not worship them, do not project human aspects on them. Use them.
The goal is to highlight the circular logic that is the fuel for gaslighting.
For me that was an informative read. I understand that we humans must seek to avoid strengthening systems that are antihuman by their very nature. (Though they have no nature only artifice). So Dan, your response made sense to me. Tim, was that an actual encounter you had with such a system? The circular logic based on flawed assumptions was infuriating.
It's a Q&A with Chat GPT.
Thanks. I wondered if you had written both parts from your own imagination, or if it was a transcript of an actual back and forth .
Please, support human beings - if you are a living human being yourself.
By asking the Harvesting Automated Computerized Knowledge Systems (HACKS, commonly known as “AI”) ANY questions, you give it open-text suggestions where its designers should make most efforts. If you do it for fun or due to lack of awareness, that’s understandable. Irrespective of motivations, it is always an act of betrayal of human beings, disclosing to merciless machines how we think and what is most important to us.
“Talking” to HACKS doesn’t have any benefits. You will not learn what HACKS knows, because it is constantly being modified and updated with each new input. It doesn’t know anything, and it doesn’t learn anything - it is merely a mechanism to harvest human minds, collect the products of human thinking, and to generate master profiles for out basic cognitive styles.
In short, you are wasting your human time and potential, readers who decide to read it will waste their human time and potential. The only winner in this is the HACKS system. Calling it “intelligence” is another betrayal of the human mind.
Be human, support human beings.
Do not glorify machines, do not worship them, do not project human aspects on them. Use them.
Do not let them use you.
They already know what we think.
If so, what’s the point of all this? Why create machines? Why live? Why believe in God? Why not believe in God? Why write Substacks?
Are we only providing input for “them” and are completely irrelevant in all other aspects?
How am I to tell it to my wife?