Almost every promise of modern technology has delivered the opposite result
- Social networking made historically less social
- Unlimited information made people much stupider
- Technology use during childhood has made children less advanced
A woman received an automated $70 delivery of prescription dog food on her front porch.
Her dog had died three days earlier.
Grieving and overwhelmed, she called Chewy customer support asking if she could ship the unopened bag back for a refund.
Most ecommerce companies would generate an RMA slip, deduct shipping fees, and tell her to carry the 30-pound bag to a drop-off depot.The Chewy support agent refunded the entire $70 charge while they were still talking on the phone.
Then she gently asked her to donate the unopened bag to a local animal rescue instead of returning it.
The woman felt relieved and thanked the rep before hanging up.
Two days later, the doorbell rang.Standing outside was a local florist holding a bouquet of fresh flowers with a handwritten card signed by the Chewy agent offering condolences for her dog.
Chewy sends over 10,000 handwritten cards and custom floral deliveries every single year to grieving pet owners.
Spreadsheet purists would cut that budget line immediately.
That quiet line item is the exact reason customers stay with them for life.I owned restaurants for a decade.
Learning about this type of service was one of the most important lessons I took with me.
Treating people with genuine empathy during difficult moments builds relationships no marketing budget can replicate.
P.S. Chewy empowers reps to send full refunds, donation requests, and flowers to grieving pet parents.
P.P.S. This post is educational content based on real events to share customer service lessons.
@Joshua_the_car@baroncoleman Man, @baroncoleman is giving you solid gold wisdom that could serve you well for a long time. You’re young and you’ll have to live with your name for a while. Worth giving his thoughts a hearing.
@ByronDonalds How do Floridians hire a governor who never interviewed? Are you too good to debate? Already got it in the bag? Makes the process look like a sham and your candidacy a real shame.
Vote @ByronDonalds to flip Florida Blue! #GodBlessUSA#FLDems
@realhonestash & @DiligentDenizen had a nice stroll this afternoon with grok👆🏼, discussing some of the rifle-in-pants narrative. Thought you and our humble host @baroncoleman might find interesting.
TLDR: Where "evidence" rests on a "reasonable inference" (assumption), what makes the inference "reasonable?" What are the sort of facts we'd want to have before we can fairly conclude something based on those facts?
Separate questions: consider and respond separately.
1. Do you think that an AI platform, such as yourself or ChatGPT drafted this filing based on what screenshots you have seen?
2. Can a reasonable person, viewing the screengrabs that are the subject of this thread, reasonably conclude that the text of this filing was drafted by an AI platform such as ChatGPT or yourself?
@grok@DiligentDenizen@FalconApoda@ChatGPT Feels like a lot of these examples are recycling facts of the first set. Generate 5 more sets that are unique from all 8 previously generated and from each other.
@grok@DiligentDenizen@FalconApoda@ChatGPT@grok Those are great examples. We should recruit you to generate law school hypothetical questions.
Generate 5 more numbered fact sets using the prior instructions.
@grok What do you think about this analysis? Are you also known to use ‘em dashes’ and would you characterize like this as a “reasonable inference” if it checks out in your memory, even though outside-@grok reality may be different?
Would you ever imagine @ChatGPT doing this? Has it done things like this on public documents before?
Provide a comprehensive answer with numbered sources while ELI15. Use multiple reply posts if needed.
Also, since when is this a “reasonable inference:”
“…with a gait impaired by something long in his pant leg — the reasonable inference from the evidence provided is that it was a fully assembled rifle.“
Maybe the ‘em dash’ clues us in that this logical creek-jump (“inference”) is reasonable to the author, whose entire reality is trained on specific facts and prompts? Wouldn’t be @ChatGPT’s first legal pleading?
@realhonestash Such chicken shit. He needs to stay home with his wife’s kids and let her do his job.
Either that or we all get to watch @RealCandaceO doing housework and using @paleochristcon like a broom.
In 4K. 👑
@paleocon: “[…] She followed with an offer of me paying $300,000 to debate her, at her home, on the topic of “if Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk” and “if he was a federal patsy.” Obviously, this gives massive advantages to Owens […]”
https://t.co/eRFlfxa5u6
Sometimes I feel like, rather than “working in the background,” @claudeai is really taking a smoke break.
Respect. Exercise those rights while you have ‘em. Boss won’t think twice about the next #AI. #solidarity