That’s pretty hardcore

Flirting is a pretty nebulous term.

My personal definition of flirting is any positive expression or behavior which:

1. Is an exception to your typical behavior or affect.
2. Targeted at a specific person, typically someone new.
3. Is heightened or marked by increased volume, nervousness, etc.

examples:

A typically reserved guy pulling you aside and animatedly asking about your interest.

A woman who normally doesn’t touch you is repeatedly teasing you about your shirt, pulling on the fabric.

A good friend begins to repeatedly and unexpectedly invite you over for one on one movie nights despite obvious inconveniences.

That’s just my opinion, though. I believe most people are looking for these heightened expressions of flirting to confirm interest.

Perhaps they assumed that you felt obligated to speak to them, and they felt the need to absolve you of that obligation. That would be the literal meaning of the phrase.

A different interpretation could be that they didn’t want to continue the conversation. In this scenario, they would prefer to be silent, and by suggesting that, “You don’t have to do this,” they have given you a polite, symbolic agency in ending the conversation, implying that both of you would rather be silent. In this way, instead of directly rejecting you, the decision to be silent would be shared. It’s a way of allowing you to save face.

Note that just because they might want to be silent, doesn’t mean that they dislike you. There are many reasons why people might know to speak at any given moment, and some people are just shy.

It’s hard to say which interpretation is correct without hearing the tone of voice, and understanding the general situation. There could be other factors or other interpretations as well.

Yes, sorry, where I live it’s pretty normal for cars to be diesel powered. What I meant by my comparison was that a train, when measured uncritically, uses more energy to run than a car due to it’s size and behavior, but that when compared fairly, the train has obvious gains and tradeoffs.

Deepseek as a 600b model is more efficient than the 400b llama model (a more fair size comparison), because it’s a mixed experts model with less active parameters, and when run in the R1 reasoning configuration, it is probably still more efficient than a dense model of comparable intelligence.

Yeah, I was thinking diesel powered trains

This article is comparing apples to oranges here. The deepseek R1 model is a mixture of experts, reasoning model with 600 billion parameters, and the meta model is a dense 70 billion parameter model without reasoning which preforms much worse.

They should be comparing deepseek to reasoning models such as openai’s O1. They are comparable with results, but O1 cost significantly more to run. It’s impossible to know how much energy it uses because it’s a closed source model and openai doesn’t publish that information, but they charge a lot for it on their API.

Tldr: It’s a bad faith comparison. Like comparing a train to a car and complaining about how much more diesel the train used on a 3 mile trip between stations.

http://archive.today/2025.01.31-010309/https://www.theverge.com/command-line-newsletter/603754/mark-zuckerberg-tells-employees-to-buckle-up-in-leaked-all-hands-meeting

I mean no offense, but it sounds like you have poorly developed social skills. I used to as well.

You could try reframing it in your mind:

It’s not faking, it’s practice.

If you pick up an instrument for the first time to practice, you will sound terrible, and possibly be discouraged, but if you practice for hundreds of hours you’ll be able to play it for real.

Babies and children aren’t born knowing how to express interest or sympathize. You certainly weren’t. Children have to learn how to do this. It is possible that you need to practice if you want to build intimate relationships. There is no shortcut to this.

(35, he/him) This is how I met my first girlfriend, in reverse. I was lonely and had mentally committed to making a friend in a manic episode. I saw her on a bench reading and asked if I could sit next to her. I had a book with me too, and began to read. Then, I asked what she was reading. We became friends, and later dated for 2.5 years.

I’ve spent a lot of time wandering around hoping people would talk to me. I used to feel like it was worthless, because 95% of the time no one will talk to you, but those odds aren’t so bad in hindsight. Go into public 100 times a year and you’ll have 5 decent shots at making a friend. Make one friend a year, and you’ll probably have more social opportunities than you want to deal with.

I’ve met people randomly in public like this perhaps 6 times.

There are other factors other than randomness:

1. I’m very friendly to people. I like to ask questions once a conversation gets going, and I get animated on just about any topic. I talk to myself a lot, so even when I’m not exposed to people I’m practiced, in a way.

2. There is usually an activity involved. Reading a book together, drawing on an airplane, posting art on a blog, taking classes together, being at the same work event, hiding in the same hard to find corner of the library. These are all situations from my life, and they typically involve a shared activity, or a creative outlet. This is probably why people recommend joining clubs / going to bars, advice I’ve never taken, but I see the reasoning.

I don’t mean to project that my social life is great! I’ve been terribly lonely during much of it, and these experiences I’m describing took place over several years. However, if I could boil down my successes, I’d say they cultivating a curiousty in others and publically engaging in my hobbies has been the best way to make friends (and occasionally lovers).

In universe? I wouldn’t say that Batman is anti corporate espionage. He’s constantly breaking the law, just with a few caveats (no killing, not to victimize innocent people, etc). He’d probably tacitly support, or at least not pursue quite so vigorously, competent vigilanties who steal records for publication, intimidate crooked CEOs, and destroy company infrastructure.

https://openai.com/index/how-openai-is-approaching-2024-worldwide-elections/

Here is a direct quote from openai:

“In addition to our efforts to direct people to reliable sources of information, we also worked to ensure ChatGPT did not express political preferences or recommend candidates even when asked explicitly.”

It’s not a conspiracy. It was explicitly thier policy not to have the ai discuss these subjects in meaningful detail leading up to the election, even when the facts were not up for debate. Everyone using gpt during that period of time was unlikely to receive meaningful information on anything Trump related, such as the legitimacy of Biden’s election. I know because I tried.

This is ostentatiously there to protect voters from fake news. I’m sure it does in some cases, but I’m sure China would say the same thing.

I’m not pro China, I’m suggesting that every country engages in these shenanigans.

Edit it is obvious that a 100 billion dollar company like openai with it’s multude of partnerships with news companies could have made gpt communicate accurate and genuinely critical news regarding Trump, but that would be bad for business.

Perhaps now it is, but leading up to the election, I found gpt would outright refuse to discuss Trump in voice mode. Meta ai too. It was very frustrating. It would start, and then respond with something like, “I’m not able to talk about that, yet.”

https://www.wired.com/story/google-and-microsofts-chatbots-refuse-election-questions/

There are plenty of examples of Ai either refusing to discuss subjects of the elections (I remember meta ai basically just saying “I’m learning how to respond to these questions.” Or in the above case, just hand waving away clear issues of wrong doing.

Chat gpt advanced voice mode would constantly activate its guardrails when asked about trump or “politically charged” topics.

Incidentally, no Western ai would make a statement on Donald Trump’s crimes leading up to the election. Ai propaganda is a serious issue. In China the government enforces it, in America, billionaires.

I frequently forget that chrome is installed on my phone. The only time I’m forced to use it is about once a year when I order Papa John’s Pizza takeout. Their checkout page doesn’t seem to work in any other browser.

Something which clarified Zuck’s behavior in my mind was an interview where he said something along the lines of, “I could sell meta for x amount of dollars, but then I’d just start another company anyways, so I might as well not.”

The guy isn’t doing what financially makes sense. He’s Uber rich and working on whatever projects he thinks are cool. I wish Zuck would stop sucking in all his other ways, but he just doesn’t care about whether his ideas are going to succeed or not.

My partner grew up in the rural South East. Says it’s pretty normal to lose power randomly throughout the year.

If it’s anchored into concert blocks, it’s not much different than internal hurricane straps that hold a roof on. They won’t move, or damage the roof, you don’t know that your talking about.

This is actually not a bad idea

I actually don’t think this is shocking or something that needs to be “investigated.” Other than the sketchy website that doesn’t secure user’s data, that is.

Actual child abuse / grooming happens on social media, chat services, and local churches. Not in a one on one between a user and a llm.