The CEOs discussed it and this year the limit is “at least one more”

Plot twist: one guy brought in 3 locked milks.

First thing it did was overwrite the partition table and everything else with that, to make its own, since it could disregard all the existing data.

I agree with the other commenter, commercial recovery, if the data was that crucial.

*hippochrissy

They did already.

https://terraria.wiki.gg/wiki/Crossover_content#Stardew_Valley

Its for prescription drugs.

You’re not supposed to flush them or throw them away without taking precautions to make sure they don’t end up in nature. Pill bottles aren’t water tight and all.

Rather than see people flush them or whatever, pharmacies will often take them and they have these days as an awareness thing.

Pretty sure the police do it just because they get drugs from arrests and already have what they need to do it properly.

A lot of our neurons are with us for our whole life. Early neuron degeneration is what causes Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, and similar disorders.

Not all neurons last a lifetime, and there are kinds that die off and are replaced, but a good chunk of them aren’t meant to replicate anymore and so won’t be freed of microplastics by bloodletting, and would cause serious problems if microplastics harm their normal processes.

Regular cells die or split regularly. When they die, white blood cells eat them, and they’ll be part of filtering the blood.

Neurons don’t though. There’s still some concerns.

Oh that’s unfortunate. Well I don’t mind not supporting people like that so I’ll give it a go

Do you mean play disco Elysium or is there some drama associated with it?

Well the IRS says it is accurate.

It doesn’t say accurate to what standard but I think its pretty clear that “tax law” is the default here.

Still feels like a waste. But my spool was just taking up space.

I regret it, it was dozens of disks, and yet haven’t needed a CD since.

Although I do still use DVDs on occasion.

Oh dang time flies when you’re having fun exploiting people

You’re missing how a bunch of their friends from their new social class already do drugs and how good those drugs feel.

Easy hole to fall into, but money honestly makes it harder to climb out of, you can always afford the drugs.

So it becomes the norm, whereas someone at the poverty line with an addiction can’t afford them regularly and has to spend grocery money on them and therefore might be addicted but also resents them.

Rich people can afford to normalize drugs and consider themselves fine while they’re on them, because they’re still living within their means.

Old, near the top, but it still flows down. Dunno exact age. Blonde, but not everyone loses hair color.

The difference is, if this were to happen and it was found later that a court case crucial to the defense were used, that’s a mistrial. Maybe even dismissed with prejudice.

Courts are bullshit sometimes, it’s true, but it would take deliberate judge/lawyer collusion for this to occur, or the incompetence of the judge and the opposing lawyer.

Is that possible? Sure. But the question was “will fictional LLM case law enter the general knowledge?” and my answer is “in a functioning court, no.”

If the judge and a lawyer are colluding or if a judge and the opposing lawyer are both so grossly incompetent, then we are far beyond an improper LLM citation.

TL;DR As a general rule, you have to prove facts in court. When that stops being true, liars win, no AI needed.

Once you’re in place and have access to tax dollars instead of campaign funds, you get them spent on things by putting that community infrastructure into place.

One problem with that is they’re running for a collective position. In their campaign, they’re captain of their own ship. A congresswoman is more a crewmate. Greater power, but more divided.

One thing they would be able to do, though, is never stop campaigning. They’ll be less active, as a congresswoman, but the campaign pivots to next election (which, let’s be honest, that’s already the norm, there is no break from politics anymore), and that next election can be focused on on-the-ground community campaigning the entire time.

So, no, you won’t see the same level of activism with tax dollars, they don’t lead, but she and others that follow her can do good consistently with their position through campaign funds and fight for good in their government while that happens.

Right the internet that’s increasingly full of AI material.

Nah that means you can ask an LLM “is this real” and get a correct answer.

That defeats the point of a bunch of kinds of material.

Deepfakes, for instance. International espionage, propaganda, companies who want “real people”.

A simple is_ai checkbox of any kind is undesirable, but those sources will end back up in every LLM, even one that was behaving and flagging its output.

You’d need every LLM to do this, and there’s open source models, there’s foreign ones. And as has already been proven, you can’t rely on an LLM detecting a generated product without it.

The correct way to do it would be to instead organize a not-ai certification for real content. But that would severely limit training data. It could happen once quantity of data isn’t the be-all end-all for a model, but I dunno when when or if that’ll be the case.

No, because there’s still no case.

Law textbooks that taught an imaginary case would just get a lot of lawyers in trouble, because someone eventually will wanna read the whole case and will try to pull the actual case, not just a reference. Those cases aren’t susceptible to this because they’re essentially a historical record. It’s like the difference between a scan of the declaration of independence and a high school history book describing it. Only one of those things could be bullshitted by an LLM.

Also applies to law schools. People do reference back to cases all the time, there’s an opposing lawyer, after all, who’d love a slam dunk win of “your honor, my opponent is actually full of shit and making everything up”. Any lawyer trained on imaginary material as if it were reality will just fail repeatedly.

LLMs can deceive lawyers who don’t verify their work. Lawyers are in fact required to verify their work, and the ones that have been caught using LLMs are quite literally not doing their job. If that wasn’t the case, lawyers would make up cases themselves, they don’t need an LLM for that, but it doesn’t happen because it doesn’t work.