Firstly, you actually can say fire in a crowded theater. It only is a problem if people panic, start to run, and someone gets hurt. For details, see this where the decision of the court specifically says it has to cause panic (injury). Saying "bomb" in an airport falls under the same category as shouting "fire".

In general, your freedom of speech stops when it lead to actual harm to others, whether it be physical (SWAT team), or monetary (libel). In certain cases, this may even include emotional IF you've been targeting a specific individual, but never if it's directed to a general group of people. For instance, I can say, all day long, that white people are cunts until I'm blue in the face and nobody can do anything about it.

You lost me on the insurance company phone call.

I'm not saying U.S. is a utopia, and I'm didn't even say anything about FB at all in this thread. All I'm saying is that freedom of speech in the U.S. is unparalleled anywhere else in the world.

There. It's apparent you don't have a clue what's considered speech, at least not in the U.S.

Where do you pull crap like this out of? According to Legality of Holocaust denial, the rule stems from 1985 in Germany. Even the earlier law, Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, wasn't enacted after WW2 ended, but during the cold war.

Where? France? Germany? The concept of free speech is literally unknown to them. What do you mean a Muslim woman can't wear her headscarf in her university class in Paris? What do you mean I can't deny that the holocaust happened while I'm in Germany?

There NO other country out there where I can run my mouth in as many directions as I can in the U.S. Not having free speech in the U.S. is about as far from the truth as you can get. It's probably the thing I most enjoy since having become a naturalized citizen.

Funny how you can say, without any risk of a lawsuit, what you just did. It's called parody and is very protected as free speech. See Hustler vs. Falwell.

On the receiving end from a priest? I would call that more than sex.

I was comparing it to regular Heintz. The ingredients in French's are Tomato Concentrate (Made from Red Ripe Tomatoes), Sugar, Distilled Vinegar, Salt, Onion Powder, Spices and Natural Flavor, which is very similar to Organic Heintz, with the exception of the "organic" part, so I wonder if I'd like Organic Heintz.

Try French's Ketchup. I did and now Heintz tastes like shit.

That's an odd question to ask. I love what I do and would recommend everybody to take on a job that they enjoy doing. But that's far from saying that my work is my main satisfaction in life. Mind you I've been self-employed for 27 years and would recommend that as well. Don't get me wrong. If I'm in the middle of a good coding run, I'm in Zen and enjoying myself. But as much as I like my work, I like traveling and listening to music more than my work.

Talking about being self-employed, I have noticed how some of the people who are employees get envious of me. That even includes my wife, who has to get up at 5:45 AM while I can sleep in until 10. But as much as self-employment comes with freedom perks, it also has a lot of drawbacks, including health insurance, lots and lots of paperwork, no paid time off, being on-call pretty much all the time, yada yada. I don't think people think about all those things.

This reminded me that I used to get paid, in beer, in 1987 to type people's papers into a word processor (Word Perfect back then). The kids didn't really know how to use a computer, let alone the intricacies of using a word processor. But the main reason they had me do it for them was because I was familiar with all the different methods of elongating their paper: margins, font size, line spacing, paragraph spacing, and so on. The awesome thing was that my price was one beer per page, so when they asked me to modify their 5 page paper to appear as 6 pages, I got an extra beer! If they were willing to pay me 2 beers per page, I'd actually retype the paper in Unix on a PDP11 (didn't have a way of transferring files between the PC and the PDP11) and then run it through the style analyzer that came with Unix so that they'd get feedback on sentence structure and whatnot. Those were the days!

What you say is just plain wrong, at least if you're talking about employees. Corporations don't pay employee's income taxes. Employees do. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either employees don't pay income tax and corporations pay them a lower wage, which possibly lowers the cost of goods (which I doubt, as corporations are super greedy), or employees make more money because they're not paying income tax, but then the corporation is not paying them a lower wage and thus the cost of goods stay the same.

If you're talking about corporate tax, that's another story, but I run a corporation and my objective at the end of each year is to not have any income, thus no tax.

Nobody can deny that it costs to host and deliver plugins to WP users and that they're eating those costs without me, as an individual user, having to pay a cent. What I don't understand why WP hasn't gone to a tiered model for number of downloads or MB per day. I use other free, online services which throttle the shit out of downloads after the first few hundred MB or block my IP for the rest of the day if I continue to abuse their freely available material. WP could have easily instituted a tiered model that would have forced WPE into paying for downloads without affecting most of their casual users.

In reality, if I were WPE, I would have a long time ago written a mirror process for the plugins and every installation of WP on my servers would have been redirected to the mirror instead. THEN, if WP blocked WPE, WPE would have had a leg to stand on since their impact on the WP servers would have been pretty much the same as any other user, despite having tens of thousands of WP installations on their servers.

And this is the crux of the problem for me and something I can't wrap my head around. If I know there's a 40% (or whatever) chance that what I'm getting back from the LLM is wrong in cases where I'm expecting a discrete answer, or hallucination in other cases, then that means I'd have to verify everything I get back from the LLM because I can't rely on its answers.

That's just semantics and beating around the bush. What you're saying is that I ask CG a question and it gives me "data". I need to know whether the data is something I can rely on (meaning that it's correct) or if I can't (meaning that it's incorrect). If I ask CG to solve a quadratic equation for me and it gives me only one of the two answers, then that "data" is incorrect (or rather incomplete). Saying if you give us $200/month, we'll give you more correct data doesn't instill in me the confidence I need to pay the $200 when I know that the original answer was wrong.

Even if I'm an expert mathematician (which I'm not), the fact that I'd have to verify what CG spews out is troublesome. I guess the issue I have is that people are treating CG like the computer on U.S.S. Enterprise (Star Trek), but it's so far from it.

You just proved my point. "Paying for more correct data" is the problem here. There's no such thing as "more correct data". Data is either correct in whole, or incorrect, even if in part. Chat GPT has rarely given me correct data. If it had, then I can see paying for more options or more detailed data, but until I know it can get things right, there's no point in paying for it. Perhaps the people who are getting correct data more often than me from it have asked trivial questions.