When ChatGPT first started to make waves, it was a significant step forward in the ability for AIs to sound like a person. There were new techniques being used to train language models, and it was unclear what the upper limits of these techniques were in terms of how “smart” of an AI they could produce. It may seem overly optimistic in retrospect, but at the time it was not that crazy to wonder whether the tools were on a direct path toward general AI. And so a lot of projects started up, both to leverage the tools as they actually were, and to leverage the speculated potential of what the tools might soon become.

Now we’ve gotten a better sense of what the limitations of these tools actually are. What the upper limits of where these techniques might lead are. But a lot of momentum remains. Projects that started up when the limits were unknown don’t just have the plug pulled the minute it seems like expectations aren’t matching reality. I mean, maybe some do. But most of the projects try to make the best of the tools as they are to keep the promises they made, for better or worse. And of course new ideas keep coming and new entrepreneurs want a piece of the pie.

Is this the Simpsons approach? “I’m just going to fire my chain guns like this, and if you get shot down it’s your own fault!”

The winner of the popular vote within the state wins the state’s electoral votes. And Florida has a sizeable number of electrical votes.

“Don’t elect the other guy” campaigning is strongly incentivized by first past the post voting, unfortunately. Not that that’s the sole cause, but… it’s certainly not helping.

Because he did crimes? Voters don’t decide whether people go to prison for crimes (unless they are on the jury, I suppose).

To reply to myself again as I keep going down this rabbit hole, the opinion in Citizens Utility Board v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995) includes

Thus, the amendment as ratified by the citizenry only limits the governor’s veto of letters and keeps intact the Wisconsin Senate conclusion that the governor has the authority to “reduce or eliminate numbers and amounts of appropriations” and exercise a “partial veto resulting in a reduction in an appropriation.”

A “reduction in appropriation” is clearly not what happened here, but the distinction between letters and numbers is apparently, at least in the opinion for this case, intentional.

I was curious, so I looked up the amended wording, which is

(b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.

(c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.

I guess I don’t know how strictly laws are usually interpreted with respect to the distinction between letters in words vs digits in numbers, but I think I would expect the court to rule against Evers here; striking digits seems to be clearly against the spirit of the amendment. On the flip side, though, the partial veto has enough of an established history of gamesmanship that I would also buy the argument that an amendment intended to ban striking digits should be expected to spell that out.

It is, and I’m fine with Evers using it to either secure school funding, or have the courts codify what the limits of the veto powers are.

Woo! Let’s get less gerrymandered!

Back in Davenport, as Hannity wrapped the town hall, the crowd’s reaction left no confusion over how Trump’s town hall and his remarks landed.

They gave him a standing ovation.

I need an adult.

I can’t understand why they wouldn’t be disallowed from working as electors in any future election full stop. Limiting it like that seems like almost no consequence.

I’m not sure how this isn’t a very clear decision. Article IV, sections 4 and 5 clearly state that the senate and assembly districts should consist of contiguous territory.

… I have no idea if this is a joke or not.

And that makes me sad.

Yeah I just imagine her doing the South Park I’m sorry routine.

Could see that coming a mile away. Still laughed.

Well that is a train wreck of a title.

But, good news.

Was… anyone under the impression that this was for any other reason?

I’m with you on this. If the cost of avoiding a shutdown were just an inquiry I’d take it; I’m worried we’ll give away something more valuable. They’re so inept I think the most likely outcome of an inquiry is that they embarrass themselves anyway.

How about: pardon him, and simultaneously draft an ammendment saying that pardons cannot be used on yourself, family members, or your close associates.

There’s https://lemmit.online/ where a bot can automatically communities based on subreddits, and mirror posts there. Last I tried it was a week or two ago and it wasn’t working great. Not sure of that was because lemmit.online was struggling or my home instance was struggling. Or both.