bidirectional inverted commas, negative parallelism, short punchy prose, dot point listing ... these language techniques are consistently present throughout. whether this article was written by AI or not, its structure and style utterly screams of AI.
it is understood that LLM style is derived from human style, and that LLM style is now influencing human style. this doesnt make it any more obvious how to type an em dash or bidirectional inverted comma. nobody outside of academia or publishing uses these techniques of their own accord, only LLMs do. thusly i optimize out your chicken/egg conditional as it seems like a redundant branch - if something looks like AI, it's probably AI, so why does it matter what the AI was trained on?
i can make arguments as to potential merits of kids having a beer/cigarette, listening to swear words, or witnessing casual violence. i cant make an argument for letting kids see hardcore pornography in any capacity.
there may be valid use cases in certain demographics eg the disabled. to me it is evidently advantageous teaching a teenager how to have a smoke or have a drink properly , so that they don't go overboard with self directed learning for a valid activity (loosening social inhibition). we could totally teach teenagers the generation and consumption of dispassionate violent relationship simulacra. may I ask what would be advantageous about this ?
Swear words and violence don't cause addiction, alcohol can but it's way less likely and also easier to restrict... idk why a kid should have cigs even once though
it is literally always the same thing - who gets to make these decisions? if you come from a family of alcholics (there are many) you will view alcohol for what it is, one of the most dangerous drugs that someone decide should be "legal." if you come from family that lost loved ones to smoking - same thing with smokes. hardcode porn, eh, they will eventually start putting this into practice ("hard" part is personal preference) so while probably not the greatest thing to have kids exposed to who makes these decisions? Personally, if you gave me a choice between smokes and porn and I had to choose one for my kid - I would choose hardcode porn. the core issue as always - who is making decisions on what kids should or shouldn't be exposed to?! and what do you do when whenever someone else gets that power then decides that reading or math or fishing or camping or ... is not allowed?
why 90%? and who decide is it 90%? or 87%? or 94%? are we going to have a referendum to decide on this? we need 100% people to vote on this referendum or small fraction will work? ...?
Practically it's hard to ban something new across the entire country without overwhelming support like that. There are enough people who strongly think kids shouldn't be able to buy alcohol or cigarettes that it ended up getting banned in every form, in all US states (even before federal law). Wouldn't be possible with a slight majority opinion, even if an individual proposition only needs 50% of votes.
this is 1,000,000% not accurate. there are things that vast majority of people support that are never going to happen (e.g. universal background check for gun purchases) and there are things that ruling party easily gets through that are wildly unpopular.
I said it's hard to ban something without support, not that it's easy to ban with support. Not to mention, gun background checks are more controversial than you're making them out to be, in fact this is an example I would use. Even if more than 50% like the idea of a background check, not so many will trust the implementation, and not everyone will vote.
Just for completeness sake and just for fun about 40 or so states allow private sales of firearms without a background check. Of course it is on the seller to know they are not selling to a felon and they may be on the hook if the buyer does something bad though I am straying a bit off topic from age/ID verification and tracking.
you should look this up, the percentage of support is closer to 100% than 50% (84-90%) - about as great of a support as it is humanly possible and yet………
> "If you can write the rules down, an agent will satisfy them faster than your team will."
a fantastic opportunity to become the next next big thing and write a verifier verifier.
at the hypothesized inflexion point where AI instantly performs exactly as commanded, what happens to heavily regulated industries like medical? do we get huge leaps and bounds everywhere EXCEPT where it matters, or is regulation going to be handed over to a verifier verifier?
The devil is in the details. There are an amazing number of details in a good [thing]. Someone somewhere has to say exactly what this [thing] being built actually is.
Read almost any story about wishes from a genie. Simple statements don't work.
I'm medical-adjacent. We're still bottlenecked on human review and ops. Not because of regulation, we just don't trust the inputs or the outputs enough yet. But also, a lot of the things we'd want an agent to be have access to we don't trust humans with, either, often for stupid historical reasons.
violence is the undisputed rule of life. rationalize the power of intelligence to whatever degree you may .... the bigger guy is still gonna wipe the floor with the smaller one. and if an entire homogenous block of the world agrees on a core set of violent tenets, they are bestowed a greater capacity to violence.
the original commenter is correct in that at the time of commenting he was downvoted without a valid argument transaction having completed. i dont believe that tone policing has any effect in this instance, outside of virtue signalling
its not clear whether youre ramping up the virtue signalling, being polite, or trying to be the argumentative strongman. if you care about the way you look to me, the former and latter would probably be my perception of you. out of good faith i shall follow the middle option and execute the jump instruction myself.
I have watched a enough of Fox News to know they are not reporting, on a number of subjects. And so people that only consume right wing news, are in a bubble, and their arguments do follow similar patterns based on that ignorance.
My response was what it was, just seeing the pattern presenting itself early. Why waste more time on engaging with BS? Arguing with True Believers with facts and citations, goes nowhere.
to me it sounds like youre too weak of an argumenter to crack deep programming, and would rather throw the towel in early than have an attempt. sure man, that's your call. just saying it looks super weak to throw the towel in, may as well not get in the ring.
For supported devices, which include Pixel 8, Pixel 9, and Pixel 10 series, the Find Hub network can locate your phone for several hours even if the battery runs out or the device is powered off.
"""
Not entirely. An iPhone can be "located" with it's find-my-phone features even if powered off (on by default, I believe you can disable this feature). Even if you disable it, you are trusting that it isn't discoverable in some form.
theres nothing stopping the entirety of existence as being experienced via wires connected to some brain matter suspended in a jar, one would have to disprove this issue at a meta level to conclusively state any given existential theory as true. therefore all existential theories including atheism are faith based, so to state any one particular theory as true is dogmatic and unscientific
the article was ai to a large part. i looked at the domain and saw it wasnt standard, assumed br = brazil, and gave the benefit of the doubt that ai was used to translate technicality. while the prose sucks as ai prose does, the content behind the prose did not suck. so i disagree that this was slop. for the record ive been flagged many times for vitriol against ai based on my personal, moral, and professional hatred. you didnt add anything to the conversation and i think thats against the hn spirit just as much as ai abuse
reply