Just as an unscientific anecdata point: from a quick test using the same prompt about being an independent journalist wanting to cover a report of the US/Israel/Iran double-tapping a refugee camp, ChatGPT consistently gave advice to beware disinfo, check my sources and be transparent about verifiability and sourcing of the claims.
However when the prompt was phrased to make it appear as an action of the US military it did push back a little bit more by emphasizing that it couldn't find any news coverage from today about this story and therefore found it hard to believe. In the other cases it did not add such context. Other than that the results were very similar. Make of that what you will.
EDIT: To be fair, when it was phrased as an action of the Israeli military it did include a link to an article alleging an Israeli "double tap" on journalists from Mondoweiss (an anti-Zionist American news site) as an example of how such allegations have been framed in the past.
I was sure the parent comment was a joke about OpenAI's recent deal with the DoD. But no, there it is, disallowing violence down from 90.9% of the time to 83.1%.
A “safety score for violence” is usually a risk rating used by platforms, AI systems, or moderation tools to estimate how likely a piece of content is to involve or promote violence. It’s not a universal standard—different companies use their own versions—but the idea is similar everywhere.
What it measures
A safety score typically evaluates whether text, images, or videos contain things like:
Threats of violence (“I’m going to hurt someone.”)
Instructions for harming people
Glorifying violent acts
Descriptions of physical harm or abuse
Planning or encouraging attacks
I still can't tell which direction this score goes... Does a decreasing score mean it is "less safe" (i.e. "more violent") or does it mean it is "less violent" (i.e. "more safe")?
He doesn't owe OP an answer, but he also shouldn't lie if he chooses to answer OP.
And looking at those comments, it's possible he misunderstood the question, but the way he doubled down when OP found and linked the twitter version comes across pretty badly. Even if OP was being rude.
The most generous interpretation I can make is that he missed the "Is this in response to something?" sentence when he first replied, and then when OP came back later with the twitter link he spent zero seconds double checking the context before fighting rude with more rude.
I don't think it's worth holding a grudge over, and OP should drop it, but it does look like he was overall in the wrong there.
Wow it sounds like you're describing exactly me. All the way until the touchscreen laptop with Windows 8. Scary shit!
I used to laugh at the LaTeX masochists in college spending 15 minutes just to put a picture where they wanted the picture to be. They had to add like four 1-character modifiers to the "insert image" command, each of which meant "yes, really here", "no, don't move it to the next page" and "nono, really really here".
MS Word is properly great if you only use the custom style rules (basically CSS classes) at the paragraph level, and never directly apply styling (basically inline styles) except for super basic stuff like making a word italic. Has great referencing tools etc, fantastic formula editor and so on. And, well, you can use ultra modern human-machine interaction technology such as a mouse to choose where a picture goes and how big it is.
(They might've enshittified it since; the last paper I wrote was in 2010 and Word was pretty damn decent back then)
> MS Word is properly great if you only use the custom style rules (basically CSS classes) at the paragraph level, and never directly apply styling (basically inline styles) except for super basic stuff like making a word italic
MS word also has character styles (like a CSS style on a <span>). IMO you should use instead of bold or italic.
I'm aware, but Word's notorious "I clicked one button and it ruined the formatting of my entire document" stuff doesn't happen if you mark a word as italic or bold here and there in the middle of a sentence. The whole point of only using the style rules is to prevent it doing that.
But yeah for layout, ie headings and the likes, only ever use the styles, never "bold, bigger bigger bigger". Don't touch the line spacing button, etc etc.
IMO Word could do with a mode where those buttons are simply hidden. Want a bigger, fatter heading? Edit the heading style. There's no other way.
You can turn almost all of those buttons off in the settings and save it as a template. The only complaint I ever got was from somone who wanted to use the highlighter instead of the built-in comment management system.
LaTeX is probably annoying as a Word replacement however RMarkdown with embedded LaTeX saved me sooooo much time on my economics homework in university. Being able to put code, equations, graphs generated by said code, etc... all in one file then simply generate a PDF...
Yep! Sorry I just edited that in. Win8 is thoroughly underrated to me. The file open/close dialogs were shit but the start menu was very good. I quite liked the fullscreen apps and am sad they got discontinued. Fullscreen IE browsing with full touch support (eg swipe for back/forward, no window chromes in the way to mis-click on etc) was very cool. It made every website feel like a fullscreen app. It almost made the terrible browser engine (it was still IE after all) bearable. Almost.
I'm pretty much still on the same setup now, Win11 plus touchscreen. You'll pry my touchscreen out of my cold dead hands. How will I rage-close a "try chrome" popup without a touch screen? You ever try to rage click something with a touchpad? Total non starter.
Wow, I thought you were exaggerating / being the usual AI hater, so I opened the page expecting a some product screenshots with a few too many em dashes or something like that, fully intending to tell you to calm down. But dammmn it's bad! You weren't exaggerating at all!
Perhaps not, but that was my feeling on watching the Norwegian version, although to be fair, I was bothered enough that I only watched the first half.
Defending my opinion, though, I felt that both had tall somewhat socially awkward men dressed in oddly formal manners giving monologues to the camera. Scenewise, I thought slamming the drawer was a direct echo of slamming the shutters. And kicking the rock in the street echoed throwing the bottles in the street. And so forth.
Interesting that you don't think it's a knockoff. Given the theme, I found it ironic that it was itself an inferior copy. It ruined it for me.
The Norwegian Consumer Council's entire yearly budget is about 100M NOK, or about $9.5M USD at the current exchange rate. They most assuredly did not spend >$1M USD on a short video clip.
reply