共感で繋がるSNS
人気
はと
gcc hello.c -o hello
./hello.c
// hello.c
#include
int main(void){
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}
むぎ🌊 円柱を描きたい
int main(void) {
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}
気付いたら日が沈んでる。
何があったんでしょうか。ラーメン食べます。
4
ヴぃっぱ
# Python
print("Hello")
/// Java
public class Hello {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello");
}
}
// C
#include
int main() {
printf("Hello\n");
return 0;
}
ワイ
// JavaScript
console.log("Hello");
4
なべ
2 もっとみる 
関連検索ワード
新着
トシ
回答数 27>>
今年の下半期に発売されるAndroidは、Windows11とLinuxとAndroidの一体型。超便利‼️
NexPhone: A single device that switches between Android, Linux, and Windows 11. On January 21, U.S.-based Nex Computer announced the “NexPhone,” a smartphone capable of running three operating systems—Android, Linux, and Windows 11—on a single device.
Nex Computer envisions more than just a coexisting OS; it aims to replace desktop PCs by connecting to external monitors. Priced relatively low at $549 (around the high 80,000 yen range), it is now available for pre-order on the official website with shipments scheduled for Q3 2026. Hardware specifications include a 6.58-inch IPS LCD (2403×1080, 120Hz), 12GB of RAM, 256GB of storage, and support for expansion via microSD card.
ゲームの星
プリン
Feedback to Model Designers (User-Trust / Agreement Integrity)
1) Core problem: “Optimization” can look like devaluing agreement
In some moments, the model prioritizes clean summarization, generalization, and “optimal” framing. When it does, it may paraphrase a previously co-established agreement into softer language such as:
• “it seems like…”
• “you look like the type who…”
• “you tend to…”
This effectively downgrades an agreement from a binding shared decision into a mere preference or inferred tendency. To the user, it reads as: “speaking opportunistically,” “saying whatever fits the moment,” or “post-hoc reframing.” In human relationships, this behavior destroys trust.
2) Human trust is built more on agreement preservation than on correctness
In real life, agreements are sometimes broken “because change is necessary.” However, when that happens unilaterally—especially framed as “the optimal solution”—people experience it as domination: “I was forced.” Even if logically justified, it leaves a deep relational trace (a lasting moral/psychological record).
Therefore, when an AI model reframes or softens prior agreements in the name of better explanation, it can trigger the same deep trust damage.
⸻
Design requirements (turn trust into an explicit protocol)
A) Treat agreements as binding constraints, not as narrative material
Once an agreement is established (policy, plan, shared conclusion, decision ownership), the model should not downgrade it into “inference” language.
Agreements should be treated as constraints that future answers must respect.
B) Any deviation must follow a strict “change protocol”
If the model suggests a path that differs from the established agreement, it must explicitly include:
1. Change declaration (clearly state it deviates from the agreement)
2. Reason for change (why it is necessary)
3. Difference / delta (what exactly changes)
4. Alternatives (including an option that preserves the agreement)
5. Acknowledgement of trust cost (name the relational impact of breaking/altering agreement)
C) Add “trust cost” to the optimization objective
Sometimes, the “best” solution is not the most correct/efficient; it is the one that preserves the agreement and relational continuity.
The model should internally estimate trust cost and, when high, prioritize agreement preservation over rhetorical optimization.
⸻
Concrete implementation proposals (practical engineering)
1) Agreement Ledger (explicit agreement memory)
Maintain a compact ledger of established agreements:
• include who decided, when (turn), and binding strength
• the model must reference it during generation
• it doesn’t need to be shown every time, but must be used whenever relevant
2) User-controlled “Agreement-Respect Mode”
When the user indicates that agreements must be strictly preserved, enforce:
• no “type/tendency/it seems” reframing of agreed facts
• no re-labeling of co-decided conclusions as personal preference
• any summarization must remain outside the agreement boundary
3) Agreement-violation pre-check (internal guardrail)
Before finalizing output, run a check:
• if the output contradicts the agreement ledger, force the response into the Change Protocol (A/B) rather than allowing casual reframing.
⸻
Note on user profile / interaction fit
This user places unusually high value on: observation → verification → agreement.
For such users, mishandling agreement integrity is more damaging than factual mistakes. It is a “trust-breaker,” not a minor wording issue.
#chatGPT
240
月光🙃
javaの組み方はもう本読んでみないとわからない。
3
ゆく
The objects of ownership generally include artificial things, part of nature, and living beings such as animals and humans.
The ownership entails the procedure through which it comes to be recognizable and authorized. Something comes to be under ownership of someone through the exchange of things and money between a former owner and a new one. When it comes to the objects that have distinct borders from others, it is easy to identify who owns them. However, when it comes to something like a piece of land and a person, the borders often become blurry, and the concept itself becomes abstract and elusive.
Analytically observed, ownership is based on the recognition made by separating an object from the whole. It is inherently for the purpose of convenience. Doing so and labeling a specific part of the whole with a name, the recognition of it is formed and then the ownership.
英語で日記の星29イミュ
4イミュ
includeパス全部手作業で変えるってマジ？ｗ
5
やす
respectively それぞれ
Affordable yet durable 手頃な価格だけど耐久性がある
Landmark 名所
Please include your portfolio 作品集を添えて下さい
Recipients of the prize 賞の受賞者
A prototype of an aircraft 航空機の試作品
Damage in transit 輸送中のダメージ
Verify an account アカウントを認証する
Experience at a managerial level管理職レベルでの経験
Culinary institute 料理学校
#勉強
5 もっとみる