u/signofno

I just read that several big AI or AI dependent company’s CEOs (Bezos, Musk, Huang, Zuckerberg) have quickly jumped onboard to affirm their solidarity with Trump’s “rebranding” of the term AI to “SI” but I’m curious as to whether anyone thinks “SI will realistically catch on since unlike a geographical moniker that can be forcibly changed on maps and schoolbooks, it’s pretty much just developed as a common term as opposed to being some sort of official designation, and it’s difficult to force new slang/colloquialisms on any given population.

Follow up, since we know at least some people will/have already switched their vernacular, and we know that if a CEO decrees it, the employees of the company they run are likely to be forced to use it, do you think, after Trump’s inevitable departure from office and likely, shortly thereafter, the evaporation of all or most of his political relevance, the term will be dropped by 1) the CEOs and 2) the dedicated Trump fans, and 3) anyone else who “got used to saying it” over the next 2-ish years?

If you think it is a short lived phenomena, how long do you think the shift back will take?

Apologies if this qualifies as talking about business, it's more for context of why I have the potentially personal debt/collections I'm dealing with due to a personal guarantee for a business card.

Quick summary: One of my LLCs dissolved 2 years ago and we had a credit card balance on one of the company cards issued through USBank with a personal guarantee. Several more automated charges racked up on it before we fully dissolved the business and as part of a deal to leave me with the company property, I paid it down for a while before abandoning that option about a year ago when my (now) estranged business partner reneged on the deal.

I got a notification of a charge-off a couple weeks ago. I have spoken to the folks at USBank about options - settlement or payment plan. My limited research seems to indicate that a settlement will report to my personal credit and cause a major dip and possibly other problems for both me and possibly any other business I'm involved with. It also indicates that a payment plan for the full amount should prevent negative personal credit reporting.

I spoke with the collections officer at USBank and they verbally assured me that either way - settlement (for about half) or payment plan for the whole amount - would not be reported to my personal credit, but said they couldn't send me this in writing.

I'm skeptical of both at this point, as 1) what would be the incentive to pay the full amount if there was no personal consequence either way, and 2) some things I've read online indicate the collections officers will straight up lie to you about personal credit reporting. The woman I spoke to was insistent that for small business cards, USBank never reports to anything but D&B and SBSE, but I can't take that at face value since they won't put it in writing.

The total debt is $12,690, so not a giant amount. I've been offered a payment plan of $217/month for 5 years, not great but manageable. But I'd still rather not have to make what amounts to a cheap car payment for the next 5 years if I don't have to, and if it will affect my personal credit either way, the settlement looks a lot more enticing ($6000).

Does anyone have any experience with a situation like this? I realize the easy answer is just do the payment plan, however, if that will still somehow end up on my personal credit, I don't see a huge reason not to take the settlement and just be done with it and let the damage happen.

I was over on that other sub, the “society” version of ME, and got banned for questioning someone’s experience - I was genuinely concerned as they appeared to be suffering from spiraling mental health issues and they were seeking confirmation rather than help. (Yeah I know, lesson learned)

But it made me curious about why people get so insistent their experiences couldn’t possibly be the result a faulty memory or malleable perception. I looked into specifically Nelson Mandela and the origins of why people think he died in prison 1986. It was interesting, but it took me all of 10 minutes to research and connect the dots that make it clear why so many people remember him dying/watching his funeral in 1986.

1. There was a funeral broadcast on tv in 1986. It was for four political activists in South Africa, but not Mandela. It was broadcast on a re-broadcast signal from Africa, so it was very low quality when viewed in most countries, and was not typically on the “primary”local news channel.

2. At the funeral, Mandela’s wife gave a passionate, fiery speech and mentioned her husband several times. But again, the broadcast was particularly low quality, and it wasn’t always easy to hear the audio clearly.

3. Most people around the world were not particularly focused on the goings on in South Africa at the time and while it was in the news and apartheid was a common topic of discussion, most info people had would have come almost exclusively from a handful of newspaper snippets, short news segments on the local news channels, and random conversations with friends who were likely also poorly informed/light on in-depth information. Despite apartheid being a “big deal” as far as human rights issues of then or any time, we didn’t have the internet and South Africa wasn’t exactly a big world player. It’d be like hearing something about Nigerian civil unrest today. Do you know a lot about what’s going on in Nigeria? How about the names of the local players?

4. The people who report “remembering” that the funeral was for Mandela with a fierce surety are quite often people who were very (or at least relatively) young at the time, not exactly the type of person who was nose to the page on world affairs, and typically the context is “I remember it so well because it was the first time I’d ever heard of Nelson Mandela” …so what you’re saying is that at 8 years old, you saw a low quality late-night broadcast of a political funeral where a woman spoke about Nelson Mandela, whom you’d never heard of before, and you don’t believe it’s possible you simply correlated the woman talking about Nelson Mandela with the imagery of a funeral and logged that in your brain as the Mandela funeral?

5. When pressed with that explanation, they often cite that their parents also corroborated they remember Mandela died in prison or later were surprised he was released from prison because they thought he died in the 80’s. Again, you don’t think a busy parent who was half paying attention to a low resolution re-broadcast of a funeral on another continent that mentioned Mandela, a man they barely knew anything about, in a conflict thousands of miles away that didn’t affect their daily life in any way, may have simply done the same thing - correlated the imagery of a funeral with his wife giving a fiery speech, and turned it into a memory that he died OR that maybe they didn’t even watch the broadcast but simply heard someone at work talk about Mandela dying or “the Mandela funeral” in the following weeks, and didn’t think much of it, logged a brief note that “mandela died” and then were surprised years later to find out he had not?

No, the hypothesis is that it’s much more likely some nefarious cabal or entity is deliberately and [usually] with precision, manipulating timelines, or shifting dimensional realities, or mass-manipulating the minds of an entire population of a country/the world and that’s the most plausible explanation because you don’t want to consider the more reasonable option of “human memory is not just flawed, it’s also piece-mealed together and highly malleable over our lifetimes, and human perception is equally flawed, malleable, and highly subjective”.

To me, this brief research (less time than it took to type this out) gets right to the heart of the problem - it is so easy to draw a rational conclusion from the evidence surrounding the funeral and explain so effortlessly why so many people would have a memory of Mandela dying in prison in the 80s despite his release years later. But it’s not very fun to have your hopes of having dimensional sensitivity dashed, and it means you’re not very special if you just recall a composite memory of an event that didn’t actually happen. And it’s scary to admit you don’t have as much control over your senses, perception, and memory as you think you do.

NOTE: the thread I posted on suggested I repost this here, just wanted to be transparent about that.

As far as I understand it, NB means non binary, which is a gender classification, but M and F refer to male and female, which are physical classifications, and are not mutually exclusive with gender - someone can be male non binary or female non binary, so I don’t understand why people write things like “her partner (28 M) was talking to me (24 NB)…”

Since we don’t use M and W (man and woman) it seems an odd mismatch to throw in NB by itself as if that settles the issue as to whether the subject is male or female.

Yes I understand there are intersex people who don’t quite fit either male or female classifications, but then that should be (24 I) not NB.

To me, using NB in place of M or F comes across like stating your ethnicity as “Christian” or “Socialist” which aren’t ethnicity and don’t describe your background/origin, they describe your philosophy. From what I’ve been taught and learned organically from my real world interactions, NB describes the way you feel about yourself, not the physical characteristics of your reproductive organs or body shape/type.

I also realize it’s not super important to know at all times whether a poster is M or F or what their gender norms are, but I’ve been seeing (age NB) use a lot recently and am curious as to the reasoning behind it.

I asked google what a non-sequitur was, and it's AI gave me the following response:

>The non sequitur fallacy (Latin for "it does not follow") occurs when a conclusion is drawn that has no logical connection to the provided premises or evidence. The ideas do not link together, even if the individual statements are completely true.

>Common Examples

>Everyday Life: "I have a big biology exam tomorrow, so I should wear my lucky blue socks."

>Flawed Logic: "Many successful people dropped out of college, so formal education is unnecessary for success."

>Irrelevant Response:"Your kitten is so fluffy!" followed by "I have a yellow truck."

The description is accurate, but I'm pretty sure none of these examples are actual non-sequiturs:

In the first example the conclusion makes an assumption - that by mentioning the exam, the claimant desires a positive outcome to the exam, which is a reasonable assumption based on generally accepted norms. Then it implies the claimant believes in luck by referencing a lucky charm. It is reasonable to conclude wearing the charm (lucky blue socks) will assist in a positive outcome to the exam and that by mentioning the exam, a positive outcome is desired. The statement doesn't show all of it's work, but the work can be easily inferred. Conversely, if instead it said "I have a big biology exam tomorrow, so I should go get Taco Bell right now." It would be much more difficult to make obvious assumptions that tie the two together without additional context.

In the second example, the conclusion is flawed, but certainly not irrelevant and is a direct conclusion that could easily be made from the claim. If many successful people drop out of college, it can quite reasonably be inferred that college may be unnecessary for success, and college is typically what we consider to be formal education. If instead it said "Many successful people dropped out of college, so a basic high school education is unnecessary for success." then we would have a conclusion that could not be drawn from the premise. College is not high school.

The third is also not a non-sequitur in that no conclusion is drawn by the second statement at all. Just saying two things out loud in succession does not indicate an argument. If it instead said "Your kitten is so fluffy, therefore I have a yellow truck." that would be a non-sequitur.

Thoughts? Am I correct here or is there something I'm missing?

Also, don't trust AI and always do follow-up research. But also don't necessarily trust the human results either. In diving deeper, I discovered that a lot of the websites the AI used to provide its results were themselves providing what I would consider really bad examples of non sequiturs.

EDITED: I did not realize when posting, the "Common Examples" segment somehow became unquoted - those examples came from the AI and were supposed to be in the quoted portion.

Someone hands me 5 short form content scripts they “wrote” but are in fact (and provably so) just copy and pasted from their ChatGPT session. They ask me to work on them. I substantially rewrite the scripts from both a technical and creative standpoint.

All of the new scripts are substantially different, and 2 of 5 of the scripts are largely unrecognizable and are essentially new scripts based off the basic premise of the ChatGPT output.

The person has not provided me with a contract of any kind.

The person then gets in a dispute with me and decides to “move on” with the project without me.

They ask if they can pay me for my time spent working on the scripts. Their offer is so ridiculously low I reject it.

Since ChatGPT output cannot be copy written, and we have no contract (the original verbal agreement was effectively to “work together on the project”) are the new scripts I wrote that are based on the ChatGPT output they sent claimable as my IP?