fbhabbed

Even the title of that Wikipedia page is misleading and choosen in a way that almost forces your opinion on this (you can't be against a regulation made for such a noble intent, can you?)

Why not just call the page Chat Control 2.0?

You will eventually get a canned AI made reply (just like all the canned AI mails they have received these days due to websites creating templates for them).

If this becomes a widespread way to bypass this, wouldn't they just pass a law to make Linux usage illegal unless you install some module?

I mean, look at all the geniuses saying "I'll just use a VPN" in response to the latest ID for age verification. A week later, the law was amended to also involve VPNs.

We already have a such thing in Italy - Constitution (the highest hierarchy in law here), article 15.

Since decades.

GPT5-Thinking if I need a precise answer with the least possible amount of mistakes.

GPT5-Pro is the real deal.

Gemini if I need creative insights and a pleasant talk, but this comes at the cost of more mistakes (and it's hella stubborn).

Hopefully Gemini 3.0 will fix this.

This alone should have made the law incoherent and impossible to pass

I see they just decided to become even more useless than they already are.

Except for the ransomware thing, or phishing mail writing, most of the uses listed there seems legit to me and a strong reason to pay for AI.

One of these is exactly preparing with mock interviews which is something I myself do a lot, or having step by step instructions to implement things for my personal projects that are not even public facing and that I can't be arsed to learn because it's not my job.

Long life to Local LLMs I guess

Even a song can do that, or a movie

This is not Cyberpunk 2077 and "AI psychosis" is trash, just like the article.

Someone is mentally ill, and can use AI. Doesn't mean AI is the problem. A mentally ill person can also use a car. Let's ban cars?

Fine, I am against this and I will intentionally include these words in all my open source projects

Kinda stupid if you ask me. Bring me back master\slave, white\black, and let's not be stupid: context matters.

I don't think we would solve crime if we give up privacy. Who's the controller? Everyone can control everyone or is there a subset of people controlling everyone else?

If the latter, they'll be the ones committing crimes at this point. Not everyone, but some of them. Every large enough subset of humans contains people that will commit crimes at some point and I don't want them to have full power and accessibility on my entire life without a warrant.

While this is a very important issue, I think there is just another excuse to get rid of the only way left to achieve anonimity on the Internet, and this can only lead to bad things.

As the author admits, there's lots of good interests in keeping Tor a thing, and nothing good can come out from removing it.

Such people sharing illicit material should be investigated and prosecuted (with severe and appropriate court orders) through the ordinary means, but the author doesn't seem to have a good solution on hand, other than showing provocative questions like "why are we funding these Tor guys".

There's no single solution that they can implement TOR-side without breaking the whole point of the project. They won't implement any backdoor or similar bullshit, no matter what. There's no point in TOR if they do that. May as well disband the project.

In my experience, and at least for now, ChatGPT 5-Thinking (and Pro if you can stomach 200$\mo)