Fair use is not disrespectful, it’s not illegal, it’s not worsening the climate crisis like your local models.

You don’t need a lot of logic to play tic-tac-toe. I’ve heard of a book that will play tic-tac-toe with you perfectly, except for one intentional mistake that allows a win. Every other game ends in a draw if you don’t make a mistake yourself.

I’m gonna guess that it’s durian ice cream.

That’s basically what these do. What’s the difficulty?

They should be equally acceptable without needing to be sexualized. But even if you like seeing tits, the best way to see other’s is to not be weird, dehumanizing, or non-consenting about it. That’s like the 1 rule of etiquette anyway, try within reason to not make other people uncomfortable.

Sand Hills aren’t very afraid of humans anyway.

Yes, that is the vulnerability that you are exploiting and making worse for an entire family of cranes.

I’ve seen this story before. It usually ends in tragedy for the cranes. You’ve likely already seen the results with the loss of their chick. You blame it on a wild animal without proof, but it’s just as likely that the reduction of their fear response to humans (as a direct result of your “kindness”) led to their death.

I disagree on ever single point you’ve said here.

While I envy your ability to get close to wildlife, loosing their fear of humans is really very dangerous for Sand Hill Cranes especially.

Sounds like a skill issue. Good translation is hard and is rarely a literal one to one mapping of syntax and diction. It’s an interpretive art.

Sounds like a skill issue. Bad translations are bad because they don’t find good ways to translate these kinds of things. As you say, translation isn’t just about the words, it’s about cultural context. But, bad translations aren’t inevitable just because good translations are difficult.

We all wear a mask.

I got my first Gmail address through an invite during the beta release in late 2004.

Just one paragraph? I understand why that feels like an indicator of LLM use these days, but that actually sounds like a fairly common mistake human writers might make. Author decides to move a topic to a different section, copies it and rewords to suite new placement and forgets to remove the section from it’s original spot. A pro shouldn’t be making that kind of mistake, but it’s a particularly difficult one to spot in reviewing the article. It’s an error that is especially difficult to spot if you’re the author because of your own familiarity with the article. The only effective way I found to combat those kinds of mistakes in my writing was to delay my own review of my writing (sometimes as long as a day or two) after significant writing or edits. Clearly that strategy is unworkable in a fast paced journalism setting, where that kind of space between writing and editing cannot meet deadlines.

This would look a lot different than the similar AI slop tell I see in news articles that repeat the headline across multiple paragraphs in a row with different wording and no new details or clarifications. I don’t see any of this in the article. I could not find the repeated paragraphs that you’re talking about. Calling back to previous points in an essay with various subsections, even repeating important points and details is often just good writing.

Does it really matter what the machines “think” if they steal water and other resources from poor and vulnerable communities on a scale that makes Nestlé jealous?

I see the irony is lost on you.

Maybe don’t screenshot late at night with your phone’s blue filter engaged.

I guess a proper margarita wasn’t green enough?

That’s like picking fights with strangers to manage your anger.

That also sounds a lot like the kind of comments that Reddit (and Lemmy, and really any social network with votes) grooms for if you prefer up votes to arguing with pedants and trolls. Eventually all your left with are boring overqualified comments or inflammatory comments when the mob rules and you are striving/solving for the most popular/engaging answer. It’s like conversational least squares analysis.

I wonder where the LLM trolls are? Maybe they are just so subtle, we haven’t noticed them. Maybe LLMs aren’t hallucinating answers, so much as they and trolling us. And here is where I qualify my answer in an attempt to quell the fools that might think anything I’ve said here implies that LLMs are anything close to sapient.

Occam’s razor doesn’t apply because a flat earth is an exceedingly complex and irregular explanation for the even the most basic naked eye astronomical observations we can make.