Ah well. People would’ve complained about that design as well. Probably also if they had just continued with the Worf-like looking ones. They look the same as before? No innovation? Yawn.

We’re hard to please. Remain Klingon!

K’LawRence would have been interesting. Who’s the best actor to play a Klingon that hasn’t been cast before?

What have rogue models effed with so far? A government website in Australia, derelict chat forums, and another AI company? I’m willing to believe that two things are happening at the same time. That sandboxing these agents will improve with these so-called breaches. And that companies like Amazon or Cloudflare are improving their security continuously with threat models. And if they don’t have rogue agents on their radar, that stack deserves to fall.

I wouldn’t lay blame here mostly at Google’s feet. They AI-err on the side of caution. I don’t know if Google finds itself as defendants in a court room right now where the influence of an LLM lead to killing or suicide. This sort of caution is the result of various user psychoses that we have learned exist in the world. Teenagers or other easily susceptible folks thinking they are Jesus, talking to god or aliens, etc. I would go so far as to say well done in a better safe than sorry kind of way in this case.

What we learn here is that the model doing search and the algorithm operate seemingly independently. And that the so-called AI results aren’t great. Water is wet, more at eleven.

Google had good search results from the late 90s to about the early 2010s. Nothing else about that company was not weird at any time. With glassholes jumping out of airplanes or them buying up almost the entire online ad market and then abusing their market position. What they are doing with Android has me this close to switching to an iPhone. And YouTube comes with its own Pandora’s box of challenges. They famously edited the “don’t be evil” stuff out of their mission statement. There are bigger Google fish to fry than this “AI summary.”

It would probably be a miracle if you hadn’t re-farted some molecules.

Who specifically would you say banned it from the internet?

Yes. The context was internet services.

Giving up Meta products wouldn’t be terrible. But it wouldn’t solve anything. The greatest environmental footprint is left by streaming, I think.

We should all get off the internet, yet here we are. Hypocrisy is the prequel to Idiocracy.

You’re formulating arguments why I’m wrong. With the greatest of respect, that’s defeatism speaking. Difficult? Yes. Checkmate? No. It may take a crisis to get this going; the New Deal didn’t come from nowhere either.

You cannot fix all of these issues at once. You probably cannot fix a lot of these issues without first improving education levels within the population. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

Term limits for SC judges to some odd number of years for any new appointees is something both sides will be able to agree on. If nobody tries though, of course it won’t happen.

If I could translate this from communism with Chinese characteristics to English: attaching importance roughly corresponds to lol.

What concern of the Chinese is it what anybody calls this stuff in English? Much less so what official US government documents call it. This is granting Trump a dumb headline that didn’t cost them anything and Xi may have actually got something from 47 during the summit that makes them entertain this bullshit.

The US has been checkmated …

I’m going to take issue with this statement. Nobody has checkmated the US. If we have to stay in this metaphor, the US checkmated itself.

One of the biggest mistakes was to allot the same number of votes to Rhode Island as to California in the senate. A more proportionate voting system would do wonders for half the issues you listed. Appointing judges for life is another one. Financing election campaigns like that is also mad. Nobody forced Americans to do business like that.

This isn’t a game of chess where checkmate is irreversible. The sooner folks stop formulating arguments why I’m wrong or why these are insurmountable hurdles, the better for all of us.

While I do agree that with the cult clown car people in charge of the executive right now, there is an added difficulty to passing legislation. The Epstein Act part 1 has shown though there are ways. So regulation on so-called AI is still possible and not late like the article seems to suggest.

What’s the point of this article? To highlight that the sausage maker that is a parliamentary democracy is slow? Or to show how narrow majority margins cause long delays in passing legislation? I can’t imagine it’s only the lack of knowledge about so-called AI. I imagine many members don’t know that much about tax law, the intricacies of the military, or drugs in general. Yet we don’t question their qualifications when they pass legislation on those subjects. We elect people to these bodies not on the basis that they are experts at everything but for their ability to look into issues and form an opinion that hopefully most resembles ours. They cannot know everything, no matter how much they pretend. If that is the standard we hold them to, you’ll only get braggadocios assholes who will stand for elections.

When has a legislature ever been on top of the latest developments, especially in tech? It’s pretty much always reactive. The seatbelt and crumple zone came after the introduction of the automobile. OSHA didn’t predate the industrial revolution. Section 230 came after the WWW. Not by much in the grand scheme of things but still. We are what now? 4-5 years into this madness? It’s not unusual not to have great regulations set in stone.

Because citizenship, employment, and torrenting are not the same thing. Torrenting by itself isn’t the same as pirating either because there are a handful of non arrrr uses for the protocol in real life. This question has the same quality of: why can’t I eat an apple, a bicycle, and the categorical imperative? Are you that obtuse or a bot?

Don’t travel to places where it’s illegal. And if you do, don’t try to acquire anything while in places where the legislation has real teeth. Chances are if weed is illegal, any fun substitute will be as well. Depending on where you are going a positive blood test, should you get in trouble with the law for whatever reason, may still get you in trouble even if all of the weed in your bloodstream was consumed where it was legal to do so. That’s also something to consider two months ahead of your trip abroad.

If you are so worried that you cannot break your habitual use you may want to investigate your use pattern even while you are where it is legal. Marijuana addiction is not a huge societal problem overall but it can be for the individual.

I did! Thanks, I edited it.

I have only briefly lived in France and it’s a way back also. I never got the impression they were inflexible about eating times.

Do those people take a different month off?

Yes. It may be time for time and not a whole month at a time. Also keep in mind that those workers aren’t full-timers. ContRacts tend to be time-limited in that field, i.e. people get hired for a season with no guarantee for work after that. So people plan their own vacation time.

Edited typo

Just as an example that this sort of localisation also happens the other way around: Paw Patrol features Ryder as the human in charge of the crack hero dog outfit. He turned into the rather Japanese ケント or Kento over here. Ryder when turned into katakana is a little too close to “懶惰, 嬾惰 [らんだ, らいだ]: indolence, laziness, sloth, idleness.” And he is a dull smartass but to be fair to the lad he isn’t lazy.

When potatoes came over from the New World, a lot of Europeans grew them as decorative plants. New shit makes people do weird stuff.

Not everybody is trying to make a business with so-called AI. The peddlers are just the loudest.

The companies promise their models can do all this stuff for paying customers. If the models were truly that capable, the so-called AI companies ought to be doing everything with them and be raking in the dough like mad. Which they’re not because they know the limitations of the models. It’s what economists call the bullshit gap between marketing and reality. And by economists I mean me.

The devil is in the details. You have to define homelessness first. Would a ban on that even be legal? And what is the state doing to prevent it and/or what are the penalties for violators? There is certainly a chance that this inches painfully close to keeping people concentrated, in a camp, which should, in a sane world, weigh heavily against such a ban. But if a ban meant anybody on the street gets put in an apartment, given medical care including therapy, and then given a chance to become a productive member of society within their means, then it wouldn’t be imprisonment. That’s the Finnish solution to the problem, which benefits from having a smaller population in the country overall and a smaller percentage of homeless people than, say, Los Angeles.

Fools! That’s exactly what was missing from creating Skynet! The workers were replaced with slop bots, now management gets replaced by slop bots too! It’s slop bots all the way down! Run for the hills!

It seems to me like you are coming to grips with the fact that statistics are nice but one mustn’t trust those one hasn’t forged personally.

I imagine there may be political or even practical reasons why they draw the line there. A lot of times lines remain fixed because they made more sense when they were drawn ages ago and now it’s just a pain in the butt to change them. Or to keep numbers comparable with those from previous years.