How does EL imply ALL? Is there a Hebrew lexicon which suggests that?

I don't think vessel and vassal are related etymologically, nor to the word "all":

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vessel

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vassal

What makes you think the "el" in vessel has anything to do with the Hebrew word El?

This has always been their excuse for taking away more freedoms.

You may as well give the website your phone number because it can already recognize you from your browser fingerprint (but not across browsers or connect you to a phone number and other people with your number in their contacts). And then you may as well tell them your name. And then you may as well give them your personal details because they can already find out from the government or credit reporting agencies. And then you may as well upload your government ID. And then you may as well do the live selfie (with your consent for police databasing and AI training in the small print) because they already have your photo.

Let us ban carrying guns outside because you're not allowed to open carry or take them into gun free zones anyway. Give us your guns because you're not allowed to take them outside anyway. Let us criminalize harming burglars because you don't have weapons anyway.

You may as well get digital ID because you already have physical ID (where the government doesn't know when/what you use it for and isn't able to make it stop working in certain circumstances) anyway.

Jesus was literally a Jew. So were all his disciples. Even after his resurrection they still considered themselves ethnic Jews following Judaism.

If you asked for those "thought processes" after it had given you its conclusion then they in fact have nothing to do with how the LLM arrived at its conclusions. LLMs have no way to look inside themselves and understand their own processes. They just make up words they predict you want to hear. So the explanation of its reasoning after the fact is simply lies - a post hoc rationalization of an irrational process.

If instead you asked the LLM to reason one step at a time and refrain from drawing any conclusions until the end, then it would be generating the next bit of text based on the earlier ones and you would in fact get an idea of how it arrived at its conclusion. But you wouldn't be able to drill down on how it made any of those individual steps - it's just based on a giant matrix of numbers. You could reset it and ask it to do the same thing again in more detail, but it would come up with different steps and often a different conclusion and you wouldn't learn much about the first time you asked it.

This is assuming we're talking about an LLM that generates text linearly and doesn't have an internal process of generating its answer first then refining it one or more times before presenting it to you. Otherwise you wouldn't have a good way to make it show something akin to a reasoning process.

Lots of non-Jews had already expressed interest in AI and trying to make it, like Alan Turing and Christopher Strachey. It's debatable what the first AI was and who its inventors were anyway. So AI would have been a thing by the 1960s with or without Jews.

Technological progress refers to technology getting more advanced. I'm not saying it's a good thing - far more often than not it's bad.

If they hadn't done it someone else would have. The problem is nothing to do with Jews, it's the culture of technological progress without consideration of the consequences.

A long list of companies now controlled by David (and Larry) Ellison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Paramount_Skydance

Sounds like they're using AI to identify records in different databases that belong to the same person so the records can be merged. Next time you go to the doctor he might be looking at someone else's medical history thinking it's yours, especially if your name is common.

They have to cave a little to public pressure and also keep up a pretence of caring about our health. Also putting massive taxes on tobacco products gives the government more money to misuse and putting restrictions on widely condemned products sets a precedent for restricting products people actually want (like ivermectin during COVID).

Chill dude. Sorry not everyone is as enlightened as you are. More information is always a good thing and complaining about it makes you sound like a fed.

Ellison's CEO pick Safra Catz is also an Israel-born Jew who communicates with Israel's heads of state and donated to Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential bid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safra_Catz

It was founded in 2007 by what or offer? Why don't they know which? And an offer of what? Or is "Or" the symbol for some currency or a new chemical element?

Apparently he's used that line many times, and he copied it from Robert Bloch: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/09/26/heart/

If you actually watched the video you'd find he said Epstein was working for both, and it was mainly Israeli stuff he was involved in

Couldn't get very much from this clip as nothing was really explained and the other guy kept interrupting. What is the evidence that the government set things up for this crime? I don't even know anything about the crime scene since I haven't been following this story.

Edit: Oh, is this not about Charlie Kirk? The video doesn't tell me anything.

And every single time when they said this it was true. People were getting lazier and lazier the whole time.

First they got rid of child labor and workhouses, then they reduced work to five days a week and 8 hours a day. Then most of the jobs moved to offices so you didn't have to break a sweat and could waste time chatting at the water cooler. Then everyone had to get equal pay for the same job so there was no incentive to work harder. Then you got to work from home and waste even more work time not working. And now people outsource their thinking to AI and pass it off as their own work.

Why did you feel like you had to have sex with the judge?

'Cause he's the one with the power. He holds my entire life in his hands. He's the one who makes the decisions over whether I get to keep my children or not. He's the one who makes the decisions on whether I go to jail.

And there's the problem. No one person should have that kind of power. And this is just someone near the very bottom of the judicial hierarchy, not a supreme court justice. The system is designed to be abused. That's the only possible explanation for why judges get to make such important decisions without anyone checking their reasoning or why judicial immunity exists to prevent judges being prosecuted for their misconduct that ruins lives.

Looks like it's season 1 episode 2: https://archive.org/details/pizzatgatereference803johnnytestfullepisodejohnnyimpossible102

Edit: I decided to dig a little deeper and found Scott Fellows was the writer and producer. He's worked at Nickelodeon on live action shows too, which don't exactly have a great track record for being child safe. Not sure how deep into Hollywood he is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Fellows

The other producer for this episode was Chris Savino. He also worked at Nickelodeon and is most known for creating the Loud House, where one of the characters has two dads. He's been nominated for Emmy and Annie awards so may have deeper Hollywood connections. In 2017 it came to light he'd been "sexually harassing" women for at least a decade, making unwanted sexual advances and threatening them not to leave him. He claimed to be Christian in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Savino

Planes have had a long time to become commercialized and have a lot of safety regulations and industry standards so they can be operated by idiots. Spaceships are only made by a few government agencies in the world and aren't used by the public so there is no expectation that they can be easily operated by idiots with safety guaranteed.

Need a source. QR code doesn't have relevant info.

This noticing is extremely dangerous to our algocracy

Of course a bunch of companies have figured out how to get people's attention by generating outrage. It's very obvious how to enrage the left or the right, and it's very obvious that it's advantageous for many advertisers to do this to get attention. That's just easy to notice from the point of view of someone who thinks about politics. Now consider that they pay whole marketing departments whose entire purpose is to figure out how to get attention. And the people who control the politicians also pay people to come up with ideas to get the left or right's support without actually doing anything to help the country. Simply making the other side mad is enough to get their almost unanimous support at this point.

Being logical means recognizing contradictions. LLMs don't recognize when they contradict themselves (unless you point it out, but they also notice things that aren't there if you point them out too).

While language (like all of reality follows logical rules, that doesn't mean that the ability to use language makes one logical. Plenty of people use language to say illogical things, and some people have made a living from saying absurdly illogical things eloquently.

But again what matters here is not to have the model reason for me, but to make it acknowledge a contradiction in the presented information, which it does

In other words, you want the model to reason to the conclusion you want so you can feel better about yourself and try to persuade others, even though the model doesn't actually follow reason.

If you have to point out its contradictions then it's not logical.

Language isn't contingent on logic. You can say lots of illogical things with language. LLMs and idiots often do. Sure, a lot of the training data is logical so a lot of the LLM output that parrots it is logical too, but when you go outside the stuff it's specifically trained on I'm sure it's more likely to get illogical. Plus a lot of human writing is illogical too, but that isn't filtered out of the training data. So you're a sucker if you think LLMs are logical, especially if you think so while admitting they unwittingly contradict themselves.