What makes that the more likely scenario?

Because it’s their facility

this facility has never had this issue until the FBI showed up to commandeer their incinerator.

Says who?

For all we know they’ve had issues everytime they incinerate but they ignored it cuz a lil bit of smoke from 1 cat is way easier to shrug off compared to a huge amount of meth

It’s very possible they just have been ignoring the problem because normal smoke from incineration a very small cadaver isn’t a big deal, whereas meth fumes are extremely toxic and not something you can just shrug off

Lord knows I’ve worked with workers who have the “I’ve been doing it this way for 10 years and never had an issue, don’t be a pussy” type of attitude too

So hard to say, without more info it’s basically just us speculating.

rather than the FBI for their clear incompetence?

The article has not stated who was responsible for operation of the facility.

It’s more likely the responsibility was on the staff to ensure the equipment at their own facility was functioning right

This sort of error should have been covered by prior operation licensing checks, a facility with an incinerator on premises shouldn’t have negative pressure issues

So something somehow caused a negative pressure issue.

Usually the culprit is some kind of exhaust fan being run, or a door being left open too long

Based on time of year and how hot out it is, I wonder if a staff member left a door propped open or something.

Incinerator systems need positive pressure overall.

Anyone who lives in the north and has a gas based furnace heating system knows how deadly negative air pressure can be…

Read the article:

The incinerator is usually used by animal control officers to dispose of euthanised animals, but local authorities said it can also be used by law enforcement to burn seized narcotics.

The incident was caused when smoke was pushed in the wrong direction because of negative pressure, according to Assistant City Administrator Kevin Iffland.

That sounds like it wasn’t a method specific issue, and if anything had been burnt in that incinerator it would’ve caused the same issue.

Sounds like the facility wasn’t setup right, any facility with an incinerator should definitely have positive pressure, not negative.

That’s more like it, thank you!

Source? This is just some random picture, I’d prefer if stuff like this gets posted and shared with actual proof backing it up.

While this might be true, we should hold ourselves to a standard better than just upvoting what appears to literally just be a random image that anyone could have easily doctored, not even any kind of journalistic article or etc backing it.

I thought he already put tariffs on us? And then again?

As a Canadian, all I can say is “hey wait a minute, I’ve seen this one before!”

I’m shocked this sorta shit still happens in 2025, how did this come into being? Thus might be a rabbit hole I go down, who founded this program, who vetted it, etc

Cool

The paper clearly is about how a specific form of training on a model causes the outcome.

The article is actively disinformation then, it frames it as a user and not a scientific experiment, and it says it was Facebook llama model, but it wasn’t.

It was a further altered model of llama that was further trained to do this

So, as I said, utter garbage journalism.

The actual title should be “Scientific study shows training a model based off user feedback can produce dangerous results”

Anytime an article posts shit like this but neglects to include the full context, it reminds me how bad journalism is today if you can even call it that

If I try, not even that hard, I can get gpt to state Hitler was a cool guy and was doing the right thing.

ChatGPT isn’t anything in specific other than a token predictor, you can literally make it say anything you want if you know how, it’s not hard.

So if you wrote an article about how “gpt said this” or “gpt said that” you better include the full context or I’ll assume you are 100% bullshit

Sorry. Naive and easily fooled by propaganda and disinformation that feeds into their bigotry

My bad ❤️

Atm we got it, this is the magic sweet spot where we want to be

172 seats exactly with lib+ndp+green

and conservatives can’t even threaten a vote of non confidence with bloc’s help. (1 vote short)

But they could trigger it with that 1 green seat’s help, which means liberals have to stay on the good side of that 1 green seat XD

Not appropriate enough.

Unironically over 30% of people somehow still voted conservative.

I’m ashamed to admit a very large amount of them are from my area.

I don’t know what is wrong with some people. The education system has clearly desperately failed many of the people here though.

The big key is gonna be if we get that sweet 172 seats with Lib+Green+NDP, we are only 1 seat short

If we hit that mark it means, hilariously, the one single green seat is needed to form a majority government without bloc’s help needed

Which will force liberal party to play ball with NDP and Green Party’s more progressive policies.

That’s our ideal scenario, conservatives are told to go kick rocks, and green/ndp get an actual voice on decision making to push the country in a progressive direction.

One. More. Seat!

Wow, that sure is something else.

This genuinely made me do an IRL spit take, holy shit.

Same, but they did set up a self hosted instance for us to use and, tbh, it works pretty good.

I think it’s s good tool specifically for helping when you dunno what’s going on, to help with brainstorming or exploring different solutions. Getting recommended names of tools, finding out “how do other people solve this”, generating documentation, etc

But for very straightforward tasks where you already know what you are doing, it’s not helpful, you already know what code you are going to write anyways.

Right tool for the right job.

I’m sorry they put tarrifs on uninhabited islands lol

Humans are “trained” with maybe ten thousand “tokens” per day

Uhhh… you may wanna rerun those numbers.

It’s waaaaaaaay more than that lol.

and take only a couple dozen watts for even the most complex thinking

Mate’s literally got smoke coming out if his ears lol.

A single Wh is 860 calories…

I think you either have no idea wtf you are talking about, or your just made up a bunch of extremely wrong numbers to try and look smart.

1. Humans will encounter hundreds of thousands of tokens per day, ramping up to millions in school.

2. An human, by my estimate, has burned about 13,000 Wh by the time they reach adulthood. Maybe more depending in activity levels.

3. While yes, an AI costs substantially more Wh, it also is done in weeks so it’s obviously going to be way less energy efficient due to the exponential laws of resistance. If we grew a functional human in like 2 months it’d prolly require way WAY more than 13,000 Wh during the process for similiar reasons.

4. Once trained, a single model can be duplicated infinitely. So it’d be more fair to compare how much millions of people cost to raise, compared to a single model to be trained. Because once trained, you can now make millions of copies of it…

5. Operating costs are continuing to go down and down and down. Diffusion based text generation just made another huge leap forward, reporting around a twenty times efficiency increase over traditional gpt style LLMs. Improvements like this are coming out every month.

For sure, much like how a cab driver has to know how to drive a cab.

AI is absolutely a “garbage in, garbage out” tool. Just having it doesn’t automatically make you good at your job.

The difference in someone who can weild it well vs someone who has no idea what they are doing is palpable.