Not my party, not my wing. I categorize myself as one of the “Leftists who understand the basics of American elections” mentioned above. I vote strategically, because a Leftist isn’t one of the top two names on the ticket. The name with an R next to it is significantly detrimental to the advancement of Leftist policy, the name with the D next to it is also detrimental, but to a far lesser degree.

Until an effective Leftist’s name takes one of the top two spots on the ballot, the math is simple: D > R. Even if both are negative, so long as D > R, the choice e is D, every time.

I’m talking to you about the practical benefit of voting for a particular candidate, not blame. Leftists comprise maybe 5% of registered voters. Centrist Neo-Libs comprise probably 30+%. Leftist turnout is significant in tipping a close election, but not enough to carry it without the Neo-Libs.

Neo-Lib candidates are better for Leftists than Fascists are. On every single metric, they are better, or at the very worst equal. Even if you consider the Ratchet model, the keep-things-the-same party is objectively better than the ratchet-to-the-right party. At least it gives you time to popularize Leftist policies and candidates. The further we ratchet to the right, the harder it is to promote the Left.

Not a very materially significant portion of them, since he wasn’t elected. I fear the terminally online leftists have convinced themselves they represent a silent bloc of significant size, and that outwardly embracing their policies would gain Democrats more voters than they alienate.

Certainly, Dems need every vote they can get, and every tiny 1% bloc helps in a tight race. But centrists are a much bigger bloc than the far-left, and scaring them off is a net loss. Democrats are yucky, but Republicans are poison, big tent for yucky or get force-fed poison.

Centrist Democrats will. Leftists who understand the basics of American elections will. Fence sitters will stay home, and terminally online leftists will vote third party out of protest, and thus the God King will ascend his golden throne.

Oh absolutely agreed, but the more discouraged apathetic voters, the more likely the Christo-fascists win. I have no interest in exacerbating that right now.

And an old sleepy man with a competent administration is still preferable to an old corrupt man with a Christo-fascist administration. It’s a sucky choice, but an extremely easy one.

It was likewise 90 minutes of confirmation that Trump is unfair for office: a non-stop steam of rambling nonsense and lies. A vote for Biden is a vote for a capable administration to do the actual work while grandpa sunsets. A vote for Trump is a vote for an administration of lackeys and con-man champing at the bit to turn the loot the country and turn it into a Christo-fascist kleptocracy.

If you think a Commander in Chief who is definitely going to betray the country for personal gain is an acceptance alternative to one who might make a mistake because he’s old, you deserve the hellscape you’ll get. The rest of us don’t though.

I cut deals with my spouse all the time. Divvying up chores, watching shows, choosing meals, etc. This seems like it’s not that though.

As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.

We’re only stuck with Biden because Biden and the people he put in charge of the DNC would rather risk trump than Biden step aside.

We’re stuck with Biden precisely because the DNC doesn’t want to risk Trump, and the incumbent advantage is significant.

Do you? “Thousands” is the word in question here

They’re good when they’re crumbled as an ingredient or topping. As-is they’re gross.

Without Biden’s unconditional support Israel would have to stop.

How did you come to that conclusion? Israel has their own arms production, and many current and potential allies who would step in.

Note “Doesn’t stop me tho”

You said you’d never heard it that way, I just wanted to clarify that I communicated the right pronunciation since “sewer” is a bit more drawn out than I meant to imply. All good

Closer to sewer, or “doer” or “fewer”. Compress it to one syllable. Think “ooh” not “ohh”.

Bore rhymes with tore. Tour is closer to sewer

You haven’t really looked into multi-agent setups at all, have you? Basically any system of multiple agents can double-check themselves.

Additionally, none of this conflicts with my original point. If you train a human on bad data, they’ll GIGO too. I know plenty of humans who have confidently told me objectively false things because they had bad training data.

LLMs are AI. They are not AGI. AGI is a particular subset of AI, that does not preclude non-general AI from being AI.

People keep talking about how it just regurgitates information, and says incorrect things sometimes, and hallucinates or misinterprets things, as if humans do not also do those things. Most people just regurgitate information they found online, true or false. People frequently hallucinate things they think are true and stubbornly refuse to change when called out. Many people cannot understand when and why they’re wrong.

That was a rhetorical question. Obviously, admitting it would be counterproductive.