I noticed this same editing style in a children's show about 20 years ago (when I last watched TV regularly). Every second there was a new cut -- the camera never stayed focused on any one subject for long. It was highly distracting to me, such that I couldn't even watch without feeling ill, and yet this was a highly popular and award-winning television show. I had to wonder at the time: What is this doing to children's developing brains?
Once you reach a certain age, you may find that these little tasks and chores become therapeutic. They offer a chance to step away from your desk and do something with your body. This isn't really a big deal in your teens and 20s, when your body can take all sorts of punishment and keep going, but once you pass the 30 mark, you may find that a little light exercise and movement feels really good if you've been sitting at a desk or staring at a screen all day.
Also, studies have shown that exercise actually improves mental acuity. I don't remember the exact details, but I recall one study that split students into two groups: one that studied for about 1 hour, and one that studied for about 45 minutes and exercised for 15. The second group (the one that studied less and exercised more) actually performed better on academic and memory tests.
So my advice is: don't think of chores as wasted time, but as opportunities to recharge your mind and body and actually accelerate your mental acuity. You might not think of folding laundry as exercise, but compared to sitting at a desk, it is.
Great new feature. Thank you! I will probably make use of this over the next few weeks.
But I did get a laugh out of "Specialist terminology, acronyms and idioms are handled gracefully" immediately being followed by a mispronunciation of "latex."
Why would an advanced entity, capable of traveling between stars, separate their body from their spacecraft?
It could be an advanced entity that evolved here on Earth and isn't capable of traveling between stars, perhaps a member of an ancient civilization that predates humanity.
Remember, "alien" and "extraterrestrial" are not necessarily synonymous.
Regarding the USAF official who says he misspoke about a killer drone AI, I think we have two plausible scenarios:
Right now, everyone seems to assume that 1 is true, but why? Even if 2 is unlikely, isn't discounting it entirely similar to uncritically accepting the original story?
You asked why this sort of violence is taboo, not whether we should break that taboo or not. I'm merely answering your question ("Why is violence in this specific context taboo?"). The answer is because it's illegal. Everyone understands, either implicitly or explicitly, that the state has a monopoly on violence. Therefore all extralegal violence is taboo. This is a separate issue from whether that violence is moral, just, necessary, etc.
Because it's illegal.
If you have perfect foresight and you know that action X is the only thing that will prevent the human race from going extinct, then maybe action X is justified. But none of those conditions apply.
This prompt uses some of my own prompt in it, so I recognize the characteristic style. It's a little over-the-top to the point of being hilariously bad at times (which is one reason why I enjoy it), but if you're looking to tone it down then I suggest changing the "unique, sassy, ironic, sarcastic, and humorous voice" to just a "sarcastic and humorous voice." That is what I've been doing lately, and the results have been much better. (By the way, the voice I was trying to emulate was Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum novels.)
One rookie mistake I see here and elsewhere in GPT-4's writing is describing the POV character's facial expressions. This is usually frowned upon in first-person and third-person limited POV because POV characters generally don't perceive their own facial expressions unless they're standing in front of a mirror. It's better to say "I felt my cheeks burning" than "I blushed," for example, because the former is truer of the POV character's experiences.
If you want to try breaking GPT of these quasi-POV breaks, you could try adding a line about Deep POV, which is modern writing lingo for a highly immersive POV that stays completely in the POV character's head. I would do it myself, but I don't have access to GPT-4.
Doing nothing might be preferable to intervening in that case. But I'm not sure if the advanced civilization in Bostrom's scenario is intervening or merely opining. I would hope the latter.