nokcha

> LLM generated content often (perhaps by definition) seems acceptable to LLMs.

In my experience (albeit with non-coding questions), ChatGPT 5.2 is often quite eager to critique snippets of its own replies from previous conversations. And reasoning models can definitely find flaws in LLM-written code.

I'd argue that environmental regulations that impede building modern nuclear power plants to replace coal power plants are net harmful. Nuclear power safety has advanced a lot since Chernobyl.

> machinery, toys, lifts, medical devices, and vehicles

All of those seem high-risk except toys.

It's the other way around: with the new change, the blockee will be able to see (but not reply to) the blocker's posts, but the blockee's posts will still be hidden from the blocker.

> ultra-processed foods such as ... yogurts

> Frozen and canned vegetables are often classified as ultra-processed

I think this goes against the common usage of the term "ultra-processed".

ChatGPT is arguably a general intelligence, but it hasn't escaped AFAIK -- it's still contained within OpenAI infrastructure, and OpenAI can easily pull the plug on it.

Most individual shareholders (especially those who just buy index funds) have neither knowledge of corporate wrongdoings nor, in practice, power to prevent them. A better model would be holding accountable the particular individuals with power and responsibility, such as in the Volkswagen emissions case where Germany criminally prosecuted executives involved in the fraud.

The "software" part of an LLM is pretty trivial -- the interesting piece is the the weights. Since the weights are mechanically generated by a computer, it can be argued that the weights are not copyrightable, just like a photograph taken by a monkey isn't copyrightable.

I guess there might be a distinction between "development" of software and "maintenance" of software (e.g., bug fixing, refactoring, etc.)?

I imagine a VPN is sometimes still useful when torrenting, to avoid copyright complaints to your ISP.