I've found that one of the most useful things I can do when using LLMs is paying attention to the tool calls so that I can tell when it's giving an explanation that's obviously not based on any evidence. If it explains why a bug happens without reading the relevant files, it's obviously just a guess. If I ask about what things exist that fit certain criteria, and it doesn't search online, at best it's relying on outdated knowledge from training and at worst it's literally inventing things that don't actually exist.
In a lot of scenarios for software engineering, the cost is just wasted time without anything useful as a result, and that's already bad enough. I can't even imagine working as a lawyer and not even taking the time to validate so I don't end up reprimanded by a judge in front of my clients, but there have been so many news stories like this that obviously this is not anywhere close to a universal view...
Experts tell us
that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions
in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the
ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a
major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In
that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
Your source says the Americans were aware the Russians would be upset by Ukraine joining NATO. Partly as a result I guess Ukraine did not join NATO and was not invited to.
The Girkin article basically says he started the war in eastern Ukraine as an imperialist who thought eastern Ukraine should be part of Russia. I see no mention western warmongers in that. If you can fault the west it seems to me that they caused the war more by forcing Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for promises to defend it from Russian invasion and then not bothering to do so.
>The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”.
I don't pay that much attention to media actually. But I work with actual victims: refugees from Ukraine whose homes were bombed by Putin's army. We can talk about who is bad for hours on end, but in the end there is an aggressor and there are victims. You can try to blur the image as much as you want but it will not change reality.
Bye the way, so you don't get offended, I used to think just like you. In 2014 I was all anti Putin viz-a-viz Ukraine, Crimea etc. That was because I consumed a lot of Western main stream news media. It's all propaganda.
I don't consume Russian propaganda. The information i get is from US Military personnel. And also written records by US and Western Officials over the last 20 years.
How do u know u haven't been duped by Western propoganda.
"You have to understand how hard this makes it to engage honestly with your post. All useful conversation requires a minimal foundation of trust/honesty/charity - i.e. that both parties honestly want the best overall outcome for everybody, and the disagreement is only about what that compromise looks like and how to get it. When you write like this, it makes you sound like you just want confrontation."
Digital Escorts
reply