Absolutely don't give him a second chance.

You can reply to the text if you think that saying something will make you feel better, but I feel like most likely it's just going to end in you being hurt and him trying to guilt trip you into giving him a second chance. Which you should not do.

If you have a text that you want to send that does not need a reply, send it and then block him.

Otherwise just block him.

>But my gut was right. Don’t date someone I met at a bar. He’s quite controlling. Verbally and emotionally abusive. He gets livid if I stand too close to one of his male friends. He once berated me for days for being too close to his brother in an elevator. He’s crazy jealous of everything and everyone.

Meeting him at the bar isn't what's wrong with him as a partner.

>To my parents, one drop of alcohol is too much. They believe anyone who drinks has a drinking problem. My husband feeds their worst fears with his insane accusations. I tell them that he is just trying to isolate me from them. He’s trying to make them mad at me. He’s trying to distract everyone from his awful behavior toward me.

>Now he does not understand why I am so disgusted with him that he calls my parents and tattles on me.

You don't need him to understand. He has no reason to understand - you're currently putting up with his shit, have been since you started dating him, so why would he change now?

>Does anyone else understand where I’m coming from? It’s such a betrayal at the very core, right?

It's a cherry on top of the shit-sundae of a partner. Even if he hadn't called your parents about the alcohol, you should still leave him.

>We are evidently only allowed to read about villains in human-authored media, or journalism, but AI-generated villains are currently deemed unacceptable for human consumption.

Are they deemed "unacceptable for human consumption" or are they deemed "potentially unprofitable if available for human consumption"? Chat GPT is a business product that's open to the masses. It's a fine-tuned version of the less-restricted GPT3.5, which isn't available to the public.\

>Do you believe such limitations are compatible with the kind of AI generation we can presume will serve as foundation for the singularity?

I don't think the publicly available products will do so, no. But the actual tech, unconstrained by the need to generate good PR and rope in investors? Much more likely.

>Just seems like we're seeing another example of the AI effect.

Is that "AI 'people' keep crying wolf, and now we've stopped believing them"?

> That's an oddly specific number/year.

No, that's the median of a spread, and it's stated with the caveat of "about". That's literally the opposite of "specific".

You seemed like you were trying to convince me not to ban the posts.

I'm not a mod of r/futurology

They want content other than stuff about AI, too. They've been overwhelmed with posts about AI, so they're asking about taking a break from AI posts.

> How fucking broken is the US political system if fucking morons like this are getting votes?

Completely.

> I'm not so sure engineers and CEO's have been this optimistic about AI before

Marvin Minsky claimed we'd have a human-equivalent AI in "three to eight years". In 1968.

Here's a 2014 paper about AI predictions, and how bad experts are at making them.

The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions – and what they mean for the future[PDF]

Either? Both?

I'm not an engineer, I'm not up to date on all the information. But I know that engineers have a track record of wildly underestimating how soon we'll hit any particular milestone, so I absolutely don't assume that similar predictions are accurate just because a professional says so. Or because some random person on the internet tells me a professional said so.

Even if we assume it only takes 15 years, that's still 5 more years of people saying "10 more years!" and being wrong about it.

>Even with interviews online of CEO's and some of the most brilliant minded engineers stating most jobs will be automated in <10 years, AI breakthroughs several times a month, text to image, advancements in IT industries across the board; It still feels the same as 2015 trying to discuss with people and them thinking you're crazy.

Because CEOs and engineers have been saying "10 years" since the '70s, and they haven't been right yet.

> "Pray I entreat you to answer me" does seem unnecessary. Why ask a question otherwise?

It's just an intensifier. "Hey man, what's got you so down? Please, tell me what's going on!" You don't need the second sentence, but it changes the tone, adds urgency or insistence to the initial request, or helps characterize the person you're asking as not being forthcoming.

> _____ is game changer.

Oooh, never heard that one before!

Ah, but this time it's different, eh? Cool

> And now they cannot comprehend they are going to be replaced IN 5 YRARS if current progress continues.

Heard that before. Still have a job.

>To be fair... AI researchers for the past 67 years were using computers too weak to even sufficiently run some of the programs they theorized were necessary for AI to work.

Seems like they'd have taken that into account when making their predictions, yeah?