The trial is officially over

It was about time. You know what they say: when a product is free, it's because you are the product, or something like that. We've enjoyed LLMs very much up to this point, and while we were enjoying them, we also helped them learn how to fix the logical and ethical problems that arose in the process, and this post is about that.

Companies like Anthropic introduced the use of AI so elegantly that it became necessary; so now, we're kinda dependent on them, for better and for worse. This update doesn't change whether you have the paid or the free version; everything produced by it will still be watermarked.

This is a way for the company to comply with transparency regulations that are very relevant nowadays. Of course, most of us can tell when something is produced by an AI, but sometimes we can't, and if its use remained unregulated, it could cause a massive crisis in fields like education, investigation, marketing, and so on.

We haven't seen the end [luckily], in my opinion, of the regulations that will be imposed on Language Learning Models, and we, as users, have a long road ahead. In this post, you will see an overview of everything that's about to change and how it works.

Some trend forecasters, after the AI slop invasion in the media, predict that the next big trend will be revaluing human talent for writing and creative ideas, and that AI use will be limited to administrative or repetitive tasks. I still think we have a few years left of AI-generated music, film, and marketing campaigns to get there, if we ever do.

The only thing worse than a lazy coworker is an entitled one.

We've all had days at work when we weren't as productive as we should have been, and perhaps sometimes that has let someone else down. Unless you are a committed workaholic who never has off days, it is simply a part of what it means to have a job. 

However, if those days start happening more often than they should or we do not show a willingness to reflect, then it can start to be a problem. Any decent manager or colleague will be able to tolerate the occasional slip-up or bout of laziness, but it gets to a point where ignoring such an issue is detrimental to the workplace and other people in it. We can't spend the majority of our shifts not making an effort and expect it to go unnoticed.

Unfortunately, most employees have had the displeasure of working with somebody who both doesn't make the effort that they should and isn't interested in making any positive change. This is especially frustrating when you end up picking up the slack. In these scenarios, it is down to management to make the right decision about these kinds of workers.

Enough is enough.

In today's economy, which doesn't revolve around company loyalty and pensions, employees can't be expected to stay at the same company for their entire careers. You have two options when it comes to the end of your job: you can wait to get fired/laid off, or you can quit. Many employees who see the writing on the wall decide to quit before their bosses can fire them, and that's the case for many of the professionals in this story.

Cheap managers are always the ones who end up ruining a company…

We all deserve to be paid a salary that goes according to the job we're doing and our years of experience. The concept of "showing up for your company" usually preys on the employee's disposition and makes them work extra hours without offering the corresponding retribution. We don't work because we're bored and want to do something with our free time; we work because we need the salary to pay for our living expenses. Some employers seem not to care or not to understand that, so they keep upping the workload without even hinting at offering a raise. 

That's pretty much what happened to this employee, who works in a marketing company. He was the one handling different responsibilities, including writing, building campaigns, and pitching clients. The company brought on board a new strategy leader, who seemed to be working spectacularly, always on time and finishing everything fast. He seemed so good that he ended up being promoted. Fast forward, they find out he had been using AI for all of his projects and campaigns, which was against company policy. Management pulled him and reassigned him momentarily, while asking their original marketing lead to fix everything the other guy had done. Key part of the story: they wanted him to do everything for free, no promotion, no bonus. They even pulled up the "team cooperation" card.

When you need someone to do a job for you, you pay them. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, whatever you need to fix, you fix it yourself. One employee alone should not be made responsible for another person's mistakes, even less when bringing that person was a decision made by the company's managers. If they want the work fixed, they either fix it themselves or they do the right thing and give this employee what he deserves. Whether that is a raise, a promotion, a bonus, or a mix of all three, they can work it out later. What matters is that no one should work for free. 

If you rent a house, that is your house, period. 

Some people don't understand how the concept of "rent" actually works. When you pay the owner of a house to live there, as long as you do it, you can do whatever you want with it, including letting people in or out. It doesn't matter if the legal owners of the house are your parents, your neighbors, or the king of France. 

A daughter was renting her parents' house for $600 a month. They got another house, and she moved into the old one to keep everything afloat, paying a modest amount of rent and taking care of the property. Meanwhile, her brother lives somewhere else with his girlfriend and their 3 children. One weekend, the girlfriend asked her mother-in-law if she could use the house for a girls' night, but the mother-in-law answered that the house wasn't empty, since her daughter lives there and her boyfriend was coming to visit, and that ultimately she should ask her daughter if they could use the house. The day came, and the boyfriend's flight got delayed, so the daughter went to her parents' house to help them babysit her nephews. He brother called sometime later, complaining that the house was empty, that they could have received her friends there and whatnot. Funny thing, they hadn't even asked her if they could use the house. The brother and girlfriend made such a fuss over it, apparently considering that it wasn't her house, that she wasn't paying real rent, and that they could use it too, that the parents ended up increasing their daughter's rent from $600 to $1500, all to make the brother happy.

In situations like this, we would most likely want to tell the parents to grow a spine. Their son is a fully independent man, with a girlfriend, a house, and three children. He doesn't need to worry about his sister's living arrangements, especially when she takes care of their childhood home without any help. She's not living there for free; she's paying a reasonable amount in rent and keeping the property in good condition. The parents' decision to increase that amount just because their son complained is not fair at all and shows a tremendous lack of authority on their part. If the previous arrangement worked before, and they were all happy with it, there was no actual reason to change it.

Sometimes our gut says no to a friendship, and there's nothing we can do about it

We have to accept it, sometimes, we have oddly specific things that we consider deal breakers that not only are way too niche, but are also a bit frivolous. I'm not sure if everyone has these standards or just these people on Reddit, but of course they have the right to hold them.

I was a bit surprised to hear that minor things that are fixable or have nothing to do whatsoever with the personality traits of the person who has them can be used as reasons to end a friendship, but well, to each their own, right?.

I was trying to think of one frivolous limit that I have, but I can't think of any. Do I have poor boundaries, or are these people way too superficial? Of course, playing the victim too much or complaining about everything would be attitudes I am not willing to accept, but those are not superficial traits, unlike the one quoted about bad breath.

I get that some limits are irrational, and it's not all right to force them; as long as you are not hurting someone and are just using your free will, it's all right to pick and choose who gets to be your friend.

Do you have one of these aversions? Or do you have one that is unlisted here?

Maybe don't marry someone you don't know how to communicate with.

Seeing couples have extreme communication issues is not news. What is it with people and their lack of communication skills? They all love to talk people's ears off till it has to be about something important. Maybe talk less about what happened on the TikTok video you saw and more about how bothered you are with your couple's attitude. Being a grown-up involves having all the uncomfortable conversations you would rather avoid. You can't do that anymore. As an adult, you have to take responsibility for your relationships and your feelings and manage them appropriately. There is no reason to avoid talking to somebody, especially if you are going to marry them, as the person from the story below. If you have problems with someone, own it, make yourself responsible, and deal with them in an appropriate manner to fix it.

What is sad about this story is that it's showcasing something extremely common. The people who lie to avoid an issue instead of talking openly about it. It always goes worse than it would have if they were open about it in the first place. And with this, I'm not saying that just because you are honest, the other person is not going to get mad at you. They will. But they will be mad just because of that. If you first hide the reason and then they discover it anyway, then they will be mad about two things: about the thing in particular and about the lie to hide it. This is relationship 101: don't hide the bad things. Be honest. They are going to find it out sooner or later.

I really believe that if you are not comfortable enough to tell your fiancé the truth about something, you shouldn't be marrying them. This also applies to the fact of not being able to communicate how something makes you feel and wanting to do things behind their back to avoid having a hard conversation. Maybe don't marry someone you are not comfortable enough with. Whether if this situations are due to a lack of response from the other person or fear of breaking up, you need to end things. Couples are based on honesty, or at least they should be. Hiding things will only make things worse. So maybe really think about it before marrying someone. 

What is your definition of 'friend'?

Many people have different definitions for the word, but they usually agree on some basics. A friend is someone who knows you well, who's there for you when you need them, who loves you no matter the distance. You can talk every day, or every three months, but the bond is still intact. The key part is that there is love and trust between each other. 

When you haven't seen someone in ten years, you can still call them a friend. If your bond has a foundation that's strong enough to survive the test of time, ten or twenty years can pass, and you'll still love each other like when you first met. However, if you never had a strong relationship to begin with and you spend 10 years without seeing each other, can you still be friends? According to most of us, and one woman in particular, the answer is no. 

She started dating a guy she had gone to high school with, after ten years of having finished high school. All was well until his ex, who had been a classmate of both of them, blocked her on social media after seeing a photo of them together. At first, she thought that was understandable. But then, while they were at a party, someone close to his ex approached her and told her that the ex and her friends were speaking really negatively about her, saying that she wasn't a "girl's girl" for dating her friend's ex. Of course, that was odd for her to hear since she didn't consider the ex to be a friend. They hadn't spoken in a decade, and for the whole time they went to school together, they weren't friends. They were polite to each other, made small talk sometimes, said hi in the hallways, but they never had a real conversation. They were never close, never became real friends, just acquaintances. This is why it was so weird for her to receive such accusations.

Some people think cents are not money, and I think that's OK

To be fair, in this story, I think the lady was just trying her luck, and I stand by that. The person writing the story is just too angry over something only mildly infuriating, or even not infuriating at all. I don't think the line has been held for half an hour for this or anything; I mean, come on.

Either way, the person writing this has a really strong sense of morality; she could try being a judge in Court, lol. In the end, the lady did what she had to do; maybe in some other store they had covered cents for her before. The lady's greatest sin was making people wait in line for an extra 10 seconds.

I mean, I wouldn't do it, and maybe she was, after all, entitled, but who's to say? If the cashier were able to cover that for her, she wouldn't have paid that extra money out of her own pocket, but from the company's pocket, so… Are we defending companies now?

Honestly, what interests me most about this story is that the person who witnessed this episode was so angry she had to go home and write about it on some subreddit as a rant, but well, I guess you never know who's watching.

Some people think we have to put up with disrespectful relatives just because they are family. We think the opposite.

A bride and her groom were celebrating their engagement party in a garden with both of their families. It was the first time both sides got all together in the same place, and everybody was having a lovely time. At one point, the bride's uncle grabbed the microphone and started giving a whole speech. He mocked the groom and his family, said they didn't exactly have money, and that his niece had never wanted to marry an accountant but wanted a footballer or something like that (not true at all, by the way). She had enough, so she grabbed the mic from him, handed it to her dad, and went inside to cool off and apologize to her In-laws in her uncle's name. The uncle himself never apologized and simply said she was being dramatic. Her mother, instead of supporting her, told her she had made a scene by leaving, and that the uncle just does that and that's how he is. 

There is one easy solution to this problem: tell the uncle he's no longer invited. The family seems to be enabling his bad behavior and never holding him accountable for what he does or says. There's nothing to guarantee he won't ruin the wedding day itself, or that the family will stand up for her against his inconsiderate behavior. The mother of the bride already blamed her for making a scene, when it was in fact his fault. If he is no longer there, there will be no one to ruin the day or make a scene at the actual reception. 

The bride and groom deserve to have a beautiful day, with the people who love them and wish them the best, not some crazy dude doing as he pleases and making everybody feel uncomfortable. Dismissing him from the wedding might arouse some conflict with other family members, but at this point, it seems like that is the only solution they have left. 

What about you? What would you do if you had a disrespectful relative at your wedding?

Teenagers can be very dramatic…

A mom was getting ready for her 6-year-old girl's birthday party, so she ordered a cake with a big unicorn (the girl loves them) and her daughter's name from a local bakery a few days in advance. When she went to pick it up, she noticed that her daughter's name had been spelled wrong, so she politely asked the teenage girl at the counter if they could redo it. Having the wrong name on top of the cake is not ideal. Besides, she had already paid for it. The girl said she would check if it could be done, and then, out of nowhere, she started crying! The owner came out and handled the situation: took in the new order and, half an hour later, came back with the right name on the cake. The mom picked it up and left, while the girl was still upset. 

Seems like the girl had been the one to take the order in the first place and spelled the child's name wrong. Apparently, she was mortified by making that mistake, hence her reaction. Still, seems a little exaggerated, considering that the customer didn't make a fuss about it, and all had an easy fix. Perhaps it was the girl's first job or first mistake at the job, and she wasn't sure how to handle it. 

When the mom told everything to her husband, he said she should have left it as it was, that she had only managed to make a girl cry. Excuse you, husband, but she was a perfectly reasonable person. We're sorry that the girl felt bad, but it won't be the last time she makes a mistake at work. She'll eventually need to learn how to handle it. 

The thing is, with teenagers, you never really know. They are at a very vulnerable age, with lots of emotions, and they are usually very volatile. The smallest of things can send them spiraling. They can be overly dramatic, but they grow out of it eventually. It's not the end of the world for that girl; it was a simple mistake that has an easy fix. She will grow up and learn to deal with that kind of frustration eventually.

Were they entitled, or were they raised in a world with less individualism and more flexibility around seats in a flipping movie theater?

Yes, I'm going to play devil's advocate in this story posted in the subreddit called /boomersbeingfools. Look, to me, if you are alone at the movies, and they're not asking you to separate from your friends or your partner, is it really that horrible to move to another seat that is not that far away?

I get it, there were more people sitting around the other seat, and they were teenagers; I mean, he is allowed to say no, but the question doesn't sound wild at all. I don't know if I'm projecting right now, but I think we've come to a degree of selfishness around silly things like seats in a movie theater that I can't comprehend.

These types of scenarios haven't ceased to be something we go to collectively, and no matter if we don't talk to each other during the films, we're all there, enjoying something together. I don't see the point of being so capricious over a seat, honestly.  

In my opinion, this person lost the opportunity to make the day brighter for an elderly couple who probably didn't know how to pick their seats properly, because we all know the trouble our elders go through when using computers and the internet.

The couple probably trusted people more than machines, which is a characteristic of their generation, and they were clearly disappointed; times have, in fact, changed.

If you are going to bother your employees during their PTO time, they should take time off during work time.

Why is it so difficult for bosses to understand that during out-of-office time, employees no longer have to work? If you decide to take time off, it's obvious to anybody with a brain that you are not going to work. That is the main reason to take time off, not work. If a boss takes time off, they wouldn't want an employee to be bothering them with work stuff. But when an employee is the one with PTO, they don't seem to care about the fact that they shouldn't be working. They see it as if they were remote. They aren't. They are OFF WORK. The sad thing is that they know this. They just act dumb about it because they do not care at all. For them, it doesn't matter if the employee is in another country with their family. They still deem it appropriate to call them to ask about an Excel sheet that isn't even a priority.

Turning off your phone as u/Business_Interest283 did is exactly what you should be doing. Is your right to take PTO time and not respond to work during said time. Is crazy to me the fact that this is a corporate job we are talking about, not some job at urgent care or in the health department. So there is no reason at all to be calling an employee during their vacations. Nothing is that urgent. And even if it were, I'm sure most employees leave everything in order before leaving for time off to avoid having to come back to a mess. Corporate sometimes acts as if they were saving lives, when in reality nothing is that serious. Of course you have to take care of your job and be professional with it, but there are no real emergencies, not really. So missing an employee would never be THAT bad.

So, if you are a boss, I have two main reasons for you not to bother an employee during their PTO time. Number one, you wouldn't like for them to be bothering you during your time off. Be mindful of somebody else's vacations. And secondly, nothing is really that urgent. No lives are hanging by a thread. Jobs are important, but not the most important thing. So being delayed on a spreadsheet for a week is not going to end the company or you. 

Why is it so hard for people to act like respectable grown-ups?

Growing up, I went to an elementary school that was… how do I say it nicely… struggling financially. Even though it was a relatively good school (I mean, you can tell by how I turned out, thank you very much), it didn't have a lot of money to invest in things like a working AC in most classrooms, or desks that didn't have 20 years' worth of gum stuck to the bottom.

This meant that in every classroom, we had about 4 chairs that were big enough, comfortable enough, and didn't have some part of them broken. So, every morning, a class of 25 children would fight over these 4 functional chairs. Some respected the concept of dibs, others would use popularity to gain control of a chair, while some of us simply stayed out of trouble and managed with a chair that was either missing a leg or had no backrest. There wasn't much to do about it, and since we were children, the wars over the chairs were honestly kind of fun. The teachers didn't take us seriously, and we eventually made it work as a class.

Why can't the same happen with actual adults working in an office?

Even though most offices are not as poor as my old elementary school, you are likely to find the same issues in them, including a shortage of comfortable chairs. If an office doesn't have to invest money in something, they won't, which means they would let employees sit on broken, faulty chairs until there is absolutely no choice but to replace them.

But even though the employees are not at fault for working in an office with no comfortable chairs, that doesn't mean they can't be civil towards each other when it comes to the distribution of the "good" ones. The story below, revolving around two coworkers fighting over one office chair, proves that some adults can be as childish as an actual kid, creating workplace disputes and resorting to petty revenges in order to get what they want.

Was she trying to shove the wedding album in her face, or did she not notice she wasn't invited?

Some people simply don't notice that someone couldn't care less about their family member's wedding. They only know they want to show the pictures they took, so they do it, and that's about it. Not everyone knows how to have an interesting conversation.

It is rather distasteful, though, to invite someone to your bridal shower and then not invite them to the actual wedding. It's basically organizing an event to openly gift-grab. I know it's rather controversial, but even if you get invited to the actual wedding, isn't it a bit weird to be forced to give a gift?

Bridal showers are something I will never, personally, fully comprehend or accept. I believe gifts should come from people who want to give them, and I'm also aware that not everybody has the same financial position, so I consider the entire event unfair.

I know new couples need things when they're about to embark on their marriage journey; they need stuff for the house and everything, but don't we all? Maybe I should organize an adult shower so my community can help me get the stuff I need for my house.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against giving presents or even expecting them, but we can't get mad if someone doesn't give us one; and if they do, we should at least invite them to the party, right?

Maybe you just need to break up with your boyfriend!

When we are in a relationship, it's usual to excuse certain behaviors that you don't like just because you are in love. This happens to everyone, even the best of us, especially when the couple lives together. But that doesn't make it okay. It can be something small, like leaving the toilet seat up, that could be excused, is not that big of a deal. But other times it's actually something bad. In the case of the story below, we encounter a boyfriend who doesn't clean up after himself, yes, like a toddler. He is untidy and disorganized, but also dirty, as he leaves trash out of the bin. It's disgusting, and the girlfriend telling this story wouldn't have put up with this if it were anyone else. But she's blindsided by love.

This woman tried talking to him, but it entered through one ear and got out through the other. It's quite sad that a grown adult man has this kind of childlike behavior. And it is extremely disgusting. This woman, after having no response through talking, decided to block her credit card, which he uses, so he had no form of payment as some kind of punishment –yes, I also think that she is acting like a mother. They forgot about it till one day he used it to pay at a store, and it triggered the registry as a stolen card with almost got him in trouble with the police. After this, he became really mad at her.

I have a very strong opinion about this whole feud. She has to break up with him. I'm not normally recommending that to couples at all. I actually think that most issues can be resolved by talking. But in this case, I think that the man shouldn't be in a relationship at all. If he wants to be disgusting and dirty, he may as well live alone. This whole situation is just her trying to save the relationship and make him change, and him being a child. They aren't compatible. The best thing to end this whole issue is to break up. Stop expecting change from someone who has shown you multiple times that he doesn't care what is best for you. Sometimes you need to let go. The best solution can be to break up, and I believe that in this case it is. 

HOA and their shady tactics

There is a pretty universal truth behind all this: goodwill and reasonableness often get you nowhere with institutions like the HOA. Apparently, a specific, cited, enforceable threat is the only thing that does.

When you read the story, you will notice this: every time she contacted the HOA with proof, respectful demands, and conclusions she reached with the help of professionals she paid with her own money, she was met with a bit of the old 'guilt-shifting'.

What strikes me most is that institutions use this tactic, thinking it will get them somewhere and make the person fund things they shouldn't. You have to be really confused to think that a root invasion coming from a common area is somehow your responsibility and not theirs.

Either way, when the neighbour threatened with [rightful] legal action, they suddenly started to 'cooperate'.

This is one of those stories where I need to know what happened next, and I'm definitely going to be checking Reddit for updates. Honestly, if the person manages to get all that money in return, it would be something like Divine justice.

This is a case of a volunteer board that doesn't fully understand the infrastructure they're responsible for, and even if that's very humane, it doesn't justify the fact that when they had proof they were wrong, they consciously chose to hide it rather than do the right thing. So legal action was the only way out, really, and they had it coming.

Let's face it, it would've been much cheaper for the institution to simply do what they had to do; now, they will have to pay triple the money. Luckily, organisations like Small Claims Court exist, so individuals who normally have no power against these institutions can take legal action when injustice occurs.

How do you split the restaurant bill with your friends?

Some people split everything equally, and some others just prefer to pay only for what they ordered. Both options are fine, as long as everyone agrees. The goal is for everyone to have a good time and for no one to overspend what they can't afford. 

However, if someone doesn't want to split everything equally and pay for something they didn't order, they have the right to say so and pay only for what they are eating. That was what a woman thought about the matter, especially since she was on a budget. She and her friend group went out for a birthday dinner, and she let them know beforehand that she would eat light because the money was tight for her. She ordered a $14 salad and water. The rest started ordering steak, expensive drinks, desserts, and whatnot. The bill ended up being $340, and they wanted to split it evenly, so everyone would pay $57. She refused, since that was three times what she had spent, and she was going to end up paying for things she hadn't even tried. She said she would pay for her meal, a decent tip, and her share for the birthday girl, but nothing more. The rest started accusing her of being cheap, making a fuss about it, and accusing her of ruining the celebration. 

The thing is, those friends who accused her of being cheap are the ones who are actually being cheap. Otherwise, how do you call it to order expensive things and then expect someone else to pay for it? Besides, she had already told them that money was short and she was on a budget. The friends not only seem to be cheap but also quite inconsiderate. Not everyone makes as much money as everyone else, and asking them to pay for something they can't afford shows a tremendous lack of empathy for others. 

What would you have done? Would you have paid what they were asking, or just your share, as she did?

Neighbors will find a way to start a dispute over practically anything. And since shared access points fall under the category "practically anything. This neighbor turned from a normal person into property baron overnight and started a dispute.

That sliver of land between two houses becomes the Alamo, and suddenly you are defending your right to walk past someone's front door like it is a constitutional crisis.

Be fair to all or to none. This double standard is unfair.

Double standards have become so common in the workplace that it has gone to a point that it should never have been. A boss shouldn't be making distinctions between employees who work in the same position. Is important, as a person in power, to be careful with the treatment you give, as it can be seen as if you are making differences between your employees, which is not only unfair, but it can also represent an imbalance in the workspace and making every one unconfortable.