I mean if someone talked to you your whole life assuming you are autistic,that's kind of fucked up ?

This response is a non-sequitur, this isn't _someone_, this is an inanimate program that hallucinates responses.

If every building I went to in the US had ramps and elevators even though I'm not in a wheelchair, would it be "fucked up" that the building and architects assume I'm a cripple?

There's just as much meaning in ChatGPT saying "As you said, you have ADHD" as a building having an elevator.

In the training data for ChatGPT, the word ADHD existed and was associated with something that people call each other online, cool. How deep.

Anyway, I do assume very single user of this website, including myself, all have autism (possibly undiagnosed), so do with that information what you will. I'm pretty sure most HN posters make the same assumption.

That's kind of how it works though. People who know you very much associate certain traits and labels with you.

It’s an unpleasant experience to have people who think they know you but clearly don’t project their opinions of what they think you’re like.

It’s probably a very human trait to do that but it is a bad habit.

Yeah and it's fucked up, so being dramatic is warranted.

ChatGPT is, to my knowledge, trained on Reddit and at least certain sub-reddits are basically people (or bots) telling others that they probably have ADHD/ADD. These are the "AskReddit" type of sub-reddit. There's a Danish subreddit for everyday questions (advise column style posts), and like 80% of people there are apparently either autistic or have ADHD.

So I'm not entirely surprised that an LLM would start assuming that the user have ADD, because that's what part of it's training data suggests it should.

In your scenario, maybe yes.

The issue is it doesn't apply here as it's neither a person or a coherent memory/thinking being.

"Thinking" models are basically just a secondary separately prompted hidden output that prefaces yours so your output is hopefully more aligned to what you want, but there's no magic other than more tokens and trying what works.

It's not a person and its not a thinking being.

There's some real science there for a couple of reasons. Protein is a macronutrient you can be malnourished if you don't get enough of even if you eat enough calories and the right micronutrients, and if most of your calories are from protein then you're actually probably not getting as many "burnable" calories as you think you are because (1) the amount of protein you need to meet your daily protein needs never enters the citric acid cycle to oxidized for ATP regeneration, (2) protein is the macronutrient that feels the most filling, and (3) excess protein that goes to the liver to be converted into carbs loses around 30% of its net usable calories due to the energy required for that conversion.

The way we count calories is based on how many calories are in a meal vs the resulting scat, and that just isn't an accurate representation of how the body processes protein such that a protein-heavy diet doesn't have as many calories as you probably think it does, which makes it a healthy choice in an environment where most food-related health problems stem from overeating.

However I agree with your skepticism insofar as when they say "prioritizing protein" they probably mean "prioritizing meat," which is more suspect from a health standpoint and looks somewhat suspicious considering the lobbyists involved.

Most Americans get plenty of protein without trying. It's hard to see how eating more meat should help unless you think the amount of protein actually needed is much more than what the May Clinic thinks: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speak...

The "without trying" people probably aren't going to make much use of a food pyramid anyway. The guidelines are more aimed at people who will try.

Americans simply do not have the problem of not getting enough protein. It's a made-up idea.

I don't think anyone ( at least around me ) is drinking milk based drink twice as much just because they feel like they get less energy per drink from skimmed milk.

You are making an argument that people do so, do you have any evidence for this ?

prohibitively expensive

You can still reuse N95s for airborne pathogens as long as they fit well, but I believe that user was referring to gait analysis being too expensive.

Such ban, even if copied in other places, will probably lead companies to display more small ads per showing.

It might also lead to more intrusive ads, as each user now has at most 5 second to see.

Note that this is most likely on paper only as they have zero power to enforce this on Youtube / Facebook which are the most popular ads-serving consumer services in the country currently.

The regulation will be enforce on domestic companies only.

A downside to this is it's impossible to enjoy a song if it's from a not so fun period of your life.

That's interesting, I have never had this re-encode thing. No matter what, "Backstreet Boys" will always stick with my school student period.

I think the main reason is it's really hard to re-listen to a piece to the same intensity as when you first heard it. I used to put Backstreet Boys on repeat for a whole week at times, and also sat through some of their sub-par pieces. Now I only listen to their best-of-playlist, in about an hour, maybe once a year.