I got an edit that you may have not seen. Just wanted to point that out.

Also, attacking my character with all that “too much time on the internet” is not the killer argument you seem to think it is.

Funny how I got this extra information with 1 online search, which you seem quite intent on avoiding.

Cats and dogs, not all animals. Because it’s performative.

So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.

I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.

Edit: There’s a bit more information on this article from the CBC, notably with the following:

Other effective models don’t yet exist for this specific line of inquiry that connects the metabolic and cellular mechanisms that can lead to, or prevent, a heart attack or heart failure with non-invasive imaging techniques.

It does, maybe it’s just not precise enough for you, but it does. Medical imaging for humans. What do you actually want?

I don’t believe you’re here to argue in good faith anyway.

Edit: I also notice that you carefully avoided another answer that goes into much more details than mine. Yeah you’re not here in good faith.

They said they told him how researchers would induce hours-long heart attacks as part of efforts to improve medical imaging processes for humans.

If only you’d bother actually reading the whole article, the same phrase you took a bit from actually explains why they do that. But no, better to just attack the whole thing pretending we do that for fun.

I too like thought-provoking takes backed by real world data…

You were asked for a source but continued your tinfoil hat-worthy drivel, problem here is on you not them.

As pointed out by another here, the problem is structural, and individual action cannot be the answer here.

I’m not sure drivers can even improve, that would mean setting higher requirements to get and keep your driver’s license, and I don’t ever see the automobile lobbies or car-centric society adhering to such changes.

Maybe if we were getting paid for the commute we would not see all those returns to office for people who can work just as well if not better from home.

Genuinely curious, what do you like about Ford?

Probably why they talked about looking at a stack trace, you’ll see immediately that you made a typo in a variable’s name or language keyword when compiling or executing.

So, “not temporary” is different from “permanent” how exactly?

Fascists like fascists

Even when we go per capita the US stays a shithole, it’s not like they were trying to actively misinform people.

I’d say that it’s simply because most people on the internet (the dataset the LLMs are trained on) say a lot of things with absolute confidence, no matter if they actually know what they are talking about or not. So AIs will talk confidently because most people do so. It could also be something about how they are configured.

Again, they don’t know if they know the answer, they just say what’s the most statistically probable thing to say given your message and their prompt.

You’re giving way too much credit to LLMs. AIs don’t “know” things, like “humans lie”. They are basically like a very complex autocomplete backed by a huge amount of computing power. They cannot “lie” because they do not even understand what it is they are writing.

It’s funny, I for one have never had to worry about going to jail after sex… Maybe it has to do with not getting friends to take turns on someone who wasn’t even aware this could be a possibility, who knows.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting the whole part about the judge completely ignoring the 5 men and focusing on accusing the victim of lying. That has nothing to do with proving or not the guilt of the accused.