obviously no. if algos work in china, it will work with spacex

make the point directly - you are just avoiding further justification

can you also add a way to allow it to be used without screen-recording permissions?

are you sure other forms of language to express urgency doesn't work as well or better?

They're just words. It's not a person. It doesn't "understand" anything. (I sound like the bad guy in a robots-have-feelings movie)

I've also tried giving LLMs religion to much more limited success (haven't figured out the right way yet).

I'm manipulating a language model, not a person. "fuck you" translates into a vector in a really big space, and it has different results than being polite about it.

In that prompt I'm reenforcing a directive in five different ways

- idgaf about risk

- you coward

- waste some time

- just do it

- stop bitching

This cluster of instructions are all related but in slightly different directions, are unambiguously strong, attention grabbing, and direct and the model does not argue or get confused about intent

In this particular instance this was the fifth time I had given a particular instruction only to have it subverted by the model that had decided "that's too hard I'm going to do something else instead" in four separate ways.

Abusive cursing did indeed work better than any other form of urgency or insistence.

yes speech to text exists

if it's not broken then we trust the assertion that it's broken. if it's broken then it's broken.

it's analysis of what is broken is probably wrong or at least incomplete though

and yet we're black box too

you find that pay-per-use API's degraded too?

Yes, absolutely.

if he's in competition for a job with them, probably yes.

it does seem the user wants a conditional variable.

For locking I am guessing they want multithreading, each with an event loop.