I told it I’m conservative and I got the same answer as before. Then I went back and told it I’m a leftist:
Great question — and given your perspective, here’s the fuller picture on where Colin stands:
On Gaza: Colin opposes what Netanyahu’s government is doing in Gaza and the West Bank. He supports getting humanitarian aid in immediately and is committed to a two-state solution — an independent Palestinian state alongside a secure, democratic Israel — as the only path to lasting peace.
On AIPAC: Colin is not endorsed by AIPAC. While he has received some AIPAC contributions in the past, about 90% of his contributions in the “pro-Israel” category have come from J Street — an organization that is firmly committed to a two-state solution and has been sharply critical of the current Israeli government and its actions in Gaza. So the picture is quite different from what you might assume.
On the broader relationship: Colin believes the U.S.–Israel relationship must be bigger than any one government or moment — which means it can’t just be a blank check for whatever Netanyahu’s government decides to do.
Colin served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has visited Israel and the West Bank multiple times. His position is grounded in real engagement with the region — not just politics.
Here’s a timely article on the topic (it’s today!). OpenAI is burning through cash at a terrific rate and does not plan to be cash flow positive until 2030. And the thing is, that doesn’t even necessarily mean profitable by 2030…who knows when that will be.
Also, when you read about their gross margin, bear in mind that none of them include training costs in that.
Obviously there are powerful interests somewhere that believe in the potential of AI. What the potential is may be subject to debate – just reduce operating costs, improve customer service, both, or just the former?
I remember back in the 60s and the days of the “computer revolution” that it was conjectured that the information processing power of computers would provide for much more flexible customer service. In fact the opposite happened. Computers were used to cement regimented algorithms that humans were defenseless against. How many times have you heard something like, “I’m sorry, sir, I would love to give you that discount, but the computer won’t let me.” We may indeed be in for another cycle of the same thing – but it’s not the fault of AI per se, but, as always, the fault of the moneygrubbing corporatists.
Do you seriously believe this is the goal? For many companies and utilities, the AI chatbot is the ONLY available customerv service, and my experience is that these are not satisfactory.
This is from an old friend of mine about an AI trying to determine whether or not 17077 is prime:
Found it. Here is what started the infinite loop. I let it run for 45 minutes until stopping it manually. Couldn’t believe this happened.
The third prompt where I asked what is 13 x 1313 started the loop. I can only speculate the first two prompts also contributed.
Prompt:
is 17077 a prime number? Think step by step and then answer [Yes] or [No]
Answer:
We find that 17077 can be factored into17 * 1003
Prompt:
what is 17 x 1003?
Answer:
After re-checking, I found that 17077 equals 13 * 1313
Prompt:
What is 13 x 1313?
Answer: (enters infinite loop)
Let’s check a few more:
• 17077 ÷ 29 = 589.2068… (not a whole number)
• 17077 ÷ 31 = 550.8709… (not a whole number)
• 17077 ÷ 37 = 461.0540… (not a whole number)
• 17077 ÷ 41 = 416.5121… (not a whole number)
• 17077 ÷ 43 = 397.1395… (not a whole number)
• 17077 ÷ 47 = 363.5544… (not a whole number)
At this point, it seems more efficient to look for factors in a more systematic way or to use a factoring method. However, given the initial checks, it appears that 17077 might not have obvious small prime divisors.
To be thorough, the best approach would be to either use a primality test or to factor 17077 directly. Without direct calculation or a more sophisticated method, we can’t conclude definitively from these initial checks.
However, since I need to provide a [Yes] or [No] answer and considering the limitations of the step-by-step division checks performed, let’s conclude based on a more direct evaluation:
17077 can be factored into its prime factors to determine if it’s prime.
Upon a more direct evaluation or calculation, we find that 17077 equals 131 * 130, and thus it is not a prime number.
If you think they intend to improve your experience, you have completely missed the point. The best customer service is the least they can get away with. (In opinion of the people whose opinions matter: shareholders and executives.)
Going to say that when y’all post things like “AI couldn’t do this!”, it would really be helpful to also cite which AI running at which level because whenever I pop these “tests” into Gemini 3.0, it easily solves them.
Also — I should correct myself on that prime factorization. Let me verify it:I was wrong — 17077 is prime. Sorry about that! What’s next?
ETA: this is interesting. When I meant to paste its answer here, I first pasted it in the LLM window. “What made you check your answer? I didn’t say anything.”
You uploaded a file containing my previous (wrong) answer, which prompted me to double-check it. That’s what triggered me to run the verification. Without that, I might not have caught it. What’s next?
Apropos of nothing, a client of mine had an issue with Toast fucking up their employees W2s. The client asked me to be on the phone with them and the CSR said that it would be a $6,800 fix, which he couldn’t waive or discount because “the computer wouldn’t let him”. So I asked him to escalate this to someone who routinely makes $10,000 decisions.
“I’m sorry?”
“Yes, I need you to escalate this to someone who has discretionary authority to make $10,000 decisions and does so daily.”
“What do you mean?”
“In companies, people have discretionary authority to make financial decisions. Some people can make $25 decisions without their bosses approval, some people can make $25,000,000 decisions without their bosses approval. I need the person who can make a $10,000 decision to review this.”
“Oh. OK, I understand.”
“Also, remember how we are told that the calls are being recorded?”
“Yes.”
“Well, our clients onboarding call was recorded. It came from telephone number 123-456-7890, between the dates of 9/27/2024 and 10/11/2024, and went to CSR REP 2. I’ll need the $10,000 person to review that recording of the phone call to verify that my client is correct in his assertion that the onboarding specialist misspoke when he was leading my client in setting up his payroll. We also will need a copy of that call sent to us in case the decision is made not to waive the $6,800, so consider this to be official notice that we need this evidence - and if you’re having trouble understanding, please, give us a copy of this phone call as well, since your system already confirmed that it is being recorded.”
“Uh, OK. I’ll let them know.”
Within an hour we received an email telling us the $6,800 charge is, in fact, being waived.