And that too. But even with fully validated input, LLMs stay unreliable. The whole approach is fundamentally unsuitable for most things it gets advertised as a solution to.

We should have determinedly started that about 45 years ago when the Science was solid. But guess what, some complete assholes and traitors to the human race needed to get richer.

I am by now convinced that all those "geoengineering" primarily get funded, so that the traitors to all the human race that are behind climate change still not getting addressed adequately, can keep getting richer. These projects will will not do and cannot do enough in time.

No new, just fuck up old.

Plus also vaccines aren't 100%. In the OP's mind, he was "told" vaccines are protection and anything less than 100% is a LIE.

But look, we're 5 years on, he's clearly got strong opinions and hasn't taken the time to learn. He ain't listening.

I applaud your efforts. It is interesting though that efforts by a single person seem to be enough to show up in the results. But yes, this research basically says that only moderate effort is needed and filtering poison out is basically impossible due to the extreme effort that would need.

Ah, no? It is _impossible_ to make them reliable and there is mathematical proof for that.

Of course, it is absolutely no surprise to find one more reason why this tech sucks.

They never do anything else.

Ok, so it depends on how much the service provider wants to hide that they are screwing you. Got it. Would probably get customer protection involved here. Not that some Telcos try to pull other shit in Europe as well.

Are you seriously asking that question? Dude, switch on your brain.

Possibly. There is also the occasional bad batch where some economics graduate moron caused things to be made cheaper than possible.

It is a mindless fetish. It goes from "we need to grow" to "we need to reduce headcount" and back again. It is not rational in any way and is probably all about giving the appearance of "doing something".

I consider Spectre and Meltdown the start of where their CPUs became really bad. Because, like all other CPU makers, Intel was warned about that risk. While AMD was at least careful (and got worse performance as a result, but a far more difficult to exploit vulnerability), Intel just went for top speed, knowing very well that their customers could pay the price. But that "speed crown" was everything to them.