They don't have him reading scripts at random. He's Hank "Creator of Sci Show" Green. He lends an air of credibility to the channel, and the fact that they got their story about knitting so incredibly wrong damages the credibility of both him and the channel.
Been a minute since I watched it, but essentially Scishow did an episode about the science of knitting (and other forms of fabric crafting, which they did not adequately distinguish between) without consulting a single person who knits. It came off as really dismissive of the craft, like it's somehow super surprising that knitting is actually interesting.
I'll update this comment with a better explanation after work, check back in 12 hours
Two things are true: one, the "I appreciate the pushback" line was regarding his guest, not a leftover AI thing. Two, this is still strikes 2 and 3 for me. Been wary of him ever since the knitting debacle, and AI use is a bridge too far
I earned my first perma by saying Ann Coulter is a racist, and the account I made to bypass that ban got banned because I illegally used sarcasm while criticizing SCOTUS. Their moderation bots have the site so locked down that you can't even have a normal conversation, and they're surprised that they're losing visitors lmfao
I mean virtual machines can be sandboxed to not allow internet connections, and there are ways of working around that sandboxing from inside the vm. I'm still torn between "OpenAI faked this felony to make their software seem more capable than it is" and "OpenAI has legitimately committed a felony and needs to be held accountable"
You and I are in two conventional spaceships traveling at 0.86c relative to each other. In my reference frame, you are traveling through time at half the rate I am. This is due to time dilation, not speed of light delay. After I experience one year on my ship, you will have experienced 6 months on your ship. In your reference frame, the opposite is true. After you experience one year on your ship, I will have experienced 6 months on my ship. This violates no laws of physics, because even though there is no universal "present," the limited speed of light ensures that causality is maintained.
Both of our ships have away shuttles with Alcubierre drives. These away shuttles can move arbitrarily fast, far in excess of the speed of light, without ever leaving their parent ship's reference frame.
After 60 years, my ship has a cyclospirosis outbreak because someone didn't wash their hands. The last pilot not suffering from explosive diarrhea hops in our away ship and instantaneously warps some distance in front of your ship (reminder: in my reference frame, you have only aged 30 years). He sends you a message explaining the situation. This message reaches you after you've only aged 30 years.
Swapping to your reference frame now. Causality must be preserved, so since you received that message after 30 years in my reference frame, you must receive that message after 30 years in your own. But in your reference frame, after 30 years of passed, my clock is only at 15 years. You decide to send your own away shuttle to warn us about this future outbreak. Your away shuttle arrives arbitrarily fast, sending us a message about a future cyclospirosis outbreak that arrives 45 years before that outbreak happens.
You can dress your FTL technology in whatever sci-fi snake oil you want. If you can get information to a destination faster than a photon could, you can break causality.
I feel like you don't need much critical thought to find it unfair that an entity would create you for the sole purpose of torturing you for eternity (Romans 9:19-21), or that the mass killing of women, children, and animals is unambiguously evil (1 Samuel 15:3) or that we shouldn't kill people for working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2)
They blocked a non-binding poll. There's only one reason why the leadership wouldn't want data on whether their members think they should support AOC running for president. Scumbags, just like the real democratic party
Well nowadays there is "someone else" (for a given definition of "someone") with a set of controls. Kids are being taught to drive in machines that literally drive themselves, and they need to learn that every decision that the self-driving computer makes ultimately falls on them as the driver. I think they were saying that this is a concept that needs to be taught, not a law that needs to be enacted.
That's not to say that a manufacturer is blameless when a FSD car careens into the side of a building at 80 mph. Just that immediate legal responsibility for the movement of a vehicle generally falls on a driver.
I mean they said "unless you're using stuff that's supremely sketchy and also installing things you shouldn't be"