The whole email thing does resemble Morton's fork:

1. See! They didn't answer the email! Clearly it means this employee is fraudulent or incompetent.
2. See! My wonderful AI assessed that the 5 bullet points are in insufficient reason for keeping them around.

It's a bit of a slimey attempt at complete discretionary firing, which Elon or even Trump can't possibly actually have the authority for.

I wonder if one of the reasons they're so young is that's the age you'd have to be to not realize in how much legal trouble they might be putting themselves in. (Bar an eventual pardon from Trump.)

I remember being quite ticked off by her takes about free will, and specifically severly misrepresenting compatibilism and calling philosphers stupid for coming up with the idea.

As long as no-one ever bakes—pluginlessly—LLMs into vanilla vim (or into normal nano) I won't despair too much.

It's also insane to believe it should be a first class feature, when those who god forbid want to "opt-in" could simply install a plugin.

The scales have fallen from my eyes
How could've blindness struck me so
LLM's for sure bring more than lies
They can conjure more than mere woe

All of us now, may we heed the sign
Of all text that will come to align

I mean notepad already has autocorrect, isn't it natural to add spicy autocorrect? /s

The 100% mathematical PROVABLY_CORRECT proof of existence of the supernatural is at least funny.

It fails to prove dualism, which it then calls the supernatural for no adequately explained reason:

There is nothing new under the sun. Nothing a 3-lb-brain hominid does is impressive. Everyone dies and leaves behind nothing. If no God exists, all is infinitely meaningless. Fortunately, we can prove with mathematical certainty that the supernatural exists:

Would a 5-lb-brain hominid bring new things under the sun ? How about a 15-ton-brain corvid ? How about an acausal robot god wrought from all the ditherings found across the net ? If it is still so why are you so concerned with phrenology ?

1. You cannot be deceived that you are conscious.

So far so good, not too contentious, you need consciousness to be deceived, though I will note that it doesn't prove consciousness, only use definitions tautologically.

2. Consciousness, in itself, contains only that which you aware of.

No ? Not necessarily, that's overly egocentric. What about the Id ? What about collective consciousness ?

3. Consciousness is composed of perceptions and a perceiver.

A bit contentious, and not a very rigorous definition.

4. Perceptions are not composed of material things. Red is not a spectrum of light, nor a retinal activation, nor an optical nerve signal, nor a biochemical process in your brain: it is only the experience the perceiver calls “red”.

Qualia != Perceptions, but this is not the worst sin in this "proof".

5. The perceiver is not composed of material things. Neither quarks, nor atoms, nor molecules, nor cells, nor organs of the brain, nor the brain > itself experiences red. Associated processes happen, but only the perceiver experience red. To say that a material object “perceives” anything is a category error.

Does a perceiver without a body even exist ? I'm not really a monist myself, but this is clearly a leap.

6. Therefore, your consciousness undeniably exists, but it is not material.

Again does it exist untethered from the material ?

7. That which exists, yet is not material, is supernatural.

Hum no ? At best preternatural, and even then if you think the natural world follows Dualism, then the spiritual is still natural. I mean yes this arguing about definitions, but by god is this silly.

8. The supernatural exists.

QED.

It's "fun" to see them fail to grasp that a journalist (or outsider) doesn't need to have read all their blogposts, and that "who talks to who" is basic journalism.

If only you read those glorious posts you would be enlightened, and if you somehow still disagree then you are either a liar, an NPC, or have not read them carefully enough, which I can prove by using shibboleths on our communities accepted doctrine.

It always boggles the mind when people fail to grasps others as being real.

One (simpler) explanation is that proving an absence of something is almost impossible, and that attempting too hard would make them look a heck of a lot guilty.

There is a good reason why the burden of evidence is “innocent until proven guilty”, and yes this extends to the (in your eyes) untrustworthy.

Prove to me you never stole candy from a store as a child (or if you did, replace that accusation with any item of higher value until you hit something you did not steal)

^^ Quietly progressing from humans are not the only ones able to do true learning, to machines are the only ones capable of true learning.

Poetic.

PS: Eek at the *cough* extrapolation rules lawyering 😬.

Am I the only one surprised they managed to enter the server rack room in the first place?