do you one better

Well thought out lol. You should get a genie, I think you’ll be prepared.

But the thing is, if they do the thing you asked in a way where it’s noticeable that they only did it because you asked, then they are signalling to you that they understood, which is a form of communication and the word used was “communicate” with animals.

Haha imagine trying to explain that to people.

“I have a superpower, I can speak to animals they just can’t speak back”

“But everyone has that superpower, I can do that too”

“Yeh but I’m actually really talking to them, like in their language that they can understand”

“How do you know?”

“…”

I think it’s getting about the level of attention as the person who started doing it hoped it would, which is about as much as possible. That attention is definitely going to run the gamut but it’s the internet so plenty of it’s going to be hate. Every time I see it I’m split between knee-jerk “that’s stupid” and then a begrudging sense of affection for someone’s commitment to pointless contrarianism and quirkiness. With the right mental framing it’s at different times annoying and endearing.

I don’t know somehow GiGa just works but GiGantic wouldn’t have. I think you instinctively made the right choice even if you didn’t mean to

Looks like he’s wearing a shower cap

Because of who gets to do the considering.

I rather like the idea of having a word for “the conversation is over, I expect no response.” In daily life lol. Feels boss.

The back of the tongue one is annoying and sometimes chokes me while in the middle of talking, but much worse is when the husk is just the right shape so it wedges in at the interface between the back of a tooth and your gum. Shit is IMPOSSIBLE to get out you just have to wait until it feels like it. No amount of poking with your tongue will dislodge it, or even if you try to use your finger and the more you try, the more the sharp corners of the husk fragment stab at the gums which hurts. Feels incredibly satisfying when it spontaneously just comes out though.

I guess compared to the other examples at least she didn’t try and persuade you it wasn’t an animal, just a bit crap at embracing a child’s natural enthusiasm and kind of immediately killing their sense of enquiry by making it in to an experience of being judged.

Was that Douglas Adams? I remember Richard Dawkins using that as an example. I always thought it was a really good analogy.

I mean they could be pretty happy, even joyful I suppose. The ideology is rooted in hatred but I do get the impression it’s rather a lot of fun for a good portion of these guys right up until they’re met with the leopard’s teeth.

I guess you could encrypt your messages in the mail as well.

I reckon it’s probably to do with internally trying to downregulate the smile so it doesn’t look really weird or crazy or fake or stupid and you just overcompensate. You don’t know what you look like while you’re doing it and that information void gives rise to some self consciousness and pre-emptive embarrassment. Natural smiles don’t require you to think about how to do it at all so most people don’t really know how to smile in a socially acceptable way on demand with a few seconds notice. Some people are better at it than others, maybe they have a better intuition, maybe they have a better awareness of what muscle movements correspond to what changes on their face and also a really good grasp of which tiny subtleties lead to a photogenic smile or the grimace of a maniacal murderer. Actors are probably pretty good at it either through intuition or just a lot of practice. I should imagine you could train yourself to be better at it, but it’d feel weird and vain to spend your time doing that so a lot of us just make weirdly flat or stern faces in photos.

If you can actually just enjoy the moment so it makes you smile as a result it’d probably get better results but that idea leads to its whole own self reflexive internal monologue trying to concentrate and force yourself to be happy that probably results in a frown while you summon that concentration.

Et tu brewtus?

I think it is real, just weird and very, ‘for the gram’ nice picture though. I guess there’s nothing unpleasant on the plate but not sure I’d be that stoked about the combo.

I can’t believe this worked lol

There’ve been occassions here on Lemmy when people have responded to questions with AI overviews or chatGPT. They acknowledged that source for the copied text, which I thought was good, and while the answers were generally too vague and hedge betting to really be of massive help they were sometimes at least providing something of an answer to questions for which there could be a definitive or at least actionable answer. The responses were not received well, a lot of downvotes and chiding, there’s a sense that, choosing to do that showed a kind of contempt for the original poster and rest of the forum. Usually the commenter was silent after the downvotes but occasionally would defend on the grounds that they were just trying to be helpful. Assuming good intent, I could empathise, sorta, especially when there were basically no other answers being provided by anyone, though I absolutely have sympathy for the offended in that context too, it really does feel pointless and dismissive more than helpful.

This brings us now to this specific context, on the face of it it could be a question with a definitive answer, like maybe there was an actual specific reason why that particular phrase and not just many similar constructions was being googled at that time, maybe a popular figure said it, or it appeared in some work of narrative fiction and resonated. Had that been the case and had the AI told you that and you copied it here, then providing that answer and even, perhaps to a fault, being so honest as to cite AI just for a simple statement of fact might have been helpful and laudable. However, unsurprisingly it appears to be a much vaguer and more open ended question, or at least it doesn’t seem to have a straightforward answer. That leaves only speculation and discussion, in lieu of hard facts and that’s something for which a forum is well suited. That you got an AI overview on the topic and it had no specific insight only musings makes its inclusion far more aggravating because you’re essentially outsourcing the theoretically enjoyable job of discussion and human connection, for which a forum is ostensibly for, to a machine, for no gain to anyone. I don’t know if you had genuinely good intentions of trying to be helpful, but the sense that, you didn’t have to say anything at all, yet you still felt the need to basically phone it in will inevitably rub people the wrong way. If you didn’t particularly want to engage with this topic or connect with the rest of us and didn’t even have anything useful to say either, what’s this for?

Unlike a lot of Lemmy I don’t think it’s inherently bad to have made use of an AI overview in the initial forming of an opinion or finding information to help you contribute, but since it turned out to be a dead end, that is, it didn’t really know, then simply not saying anything here was always an option.

Also, in the Bond universe a LOT of people seem to know who he is, it’s not public knowledge per se, but like it seems that all major intelligence services have heard of him and also anybody with power and connections and ill-intent.

He kinda operates like a really weird form of special forces than a spy half the time.