Note that it might take a while though, so if anyone wants to get this done before the 30th (so you can use API-based tools to wipe comments), request it ASAP.

I requested…maybe two weeks or so ago? And it only came through today. So get to it y’all

Two accounts I believe. It’s like having a gmail and hotmail account with the same name before the @

Even more than that, you have the idea that ‘similar users to yourself buy a lot of alcohol, so you probably will too’. Of course alcoholics, whether attempting recovery or not, are likely to buy alcohol. So if you’re a recovering alcoholic, ‘similar users to yourself’ are gonna be buying more alcohol than usual, and so you’ll see ads for it. Totally heartless and just for-profit.

I see what you mean to an extent, and I also just moved over, but it’s worth remembering that Digg -> Reddit was the same afaik. Like Reddit had been around and established for a decent amount of time before the fall of Digg. (This is second-hand info because I wasn’t around at the time)

I’d be interested to know from someone more tech-savvy whether googling advice, and then clicking on the cached version, still counts as viewing reddit. Because I’d ideally still like to append reddit to my google searches without giving them ad views.

AKA if someone monetises advice given for free, we should be able to freely access it.

I like story heavy games so I personally don’t mind unskippable cut scenes… the first time around. What reeeaaaaally annoys me is when it’s a game with multiple endings and I can’t skip the same cut scenes on future playthroughs.

Same when it’s a reading-heavy multiple ending game, but it won’t let me skip text that I’ve seen already.

Great comment. I do find the octopus example somewhat puzzling, though, but perhaps that’s just the way the example is set up. I, personally, have never encountered a bear, I’ve only read about them and seen videos. If someone had asked me for bear advice before I’d ever read about them/seen videos, then I wouldn’t know how to respond. I might be able to infer what to do from ‘attacked’ and ‘defend’, but I think that’s possible for an LLM as well. But I’m not sure there’s a salient difference offered by this example between the octopus, and me before I learnt about bears.

Although there’s definitely elements of bullshitting there - I just asked GPT how to defend against a wayfarble with only deens on me, and some of the advice was good (e.g. general advice when being attacked like staying calm and creating distance), and then there was this response which implies some sort of inference:

“6. Use your deens as a distraction: Since you mentioned having deens with you, consider using them as a distraction. Throw the deens away from your position to divert the wayfarble’s attention, giving you an opportunity to escape.”

But then there was this obvious example of bullshittery:

“5. Make noise: Wayfarbles are known to be sensitive to certain sounds. Clap your hands, shout, or use any available tools to create loud noises. This might startle or deter the wayfarble.”

So I’m divided on the octopus example. It seems to me that there’s potential for that kind of inference and that point 5 was really the only bullshit point that stood out to me. Whether that’s something that can be got rid of, I don’t know.