I used paid models which will be the only ones the LLM bros will care about. Even they kinda know not to glaze the free models. So not surprising

( I have to have the paid models for work, my lead developer is a LLM nut )

Just a heads up for anyone who may use this in an argument. I just tested on several models and the generated response accounted for the logical fallacy. Unfortunately it isn’t real.

( Funny non-the less )

Honestly I really should be in there somewhere…

I think I’m a bit of an outlier.

No I liked the original! It’s a stark contrast!

lol survival rate vs death rate.

That makes a lot of sense thanks for the response

Do these companies actually have a group of people who read through and target specific concepts like this? Seems insane. If I was a intern somewhere punching these filters in I’d just throw a fit

The US

Modern sewer systems are safe, spreading everyone around the country side and connect with high speed rail isn’t feasible. We need to work on our communities and make cities safe for people to live in, get rid of cars etc. spreading out isn’t the answer

It’s fun when someone comments something you completely agree with :). My only response is “yes”

Cities are more efficient than rural communities. Concentration of people is better than spreading everyone out. You’d see much more environmental destruction if everyone moved rural. Plus it’s much harder to get resources to rural communities. Modifications should be made but everyone pooping in the woods in a bucket isn’t a good idea either.

We already do. Lots of rural communities already use septic tanks for waste management instead. And there really isn’t a good alternative for landfills. You can compost food but that’s only like half the waste.

Alot of that just isn’t something we can do inside cities