trehalose

I don’t understand your attitude. The slaughter of hundreds of children seems genuinely inherently upsetting and unacceptable to me. I don’t see why an element of negligence would make this something to just “not pontificate on” in a court of law or in public discourse.

Arguing about who's the largest group of traumatized children and which groups are less significant trivializes all childhood trauma.

Don't these kids believe they're protesting the destruction of the job market? Isn't that an understandable belief, given that AI company CEOs have publicly predicted they'll make it happen?

Connotations are by far the biggest difference between these two substances.

Nearly every person you have shared CIRS info with was formally diagnosed with CIRS by a doctor? Or were you the one diagnosing them?

Some nonzero percentage of these people could have been helped cheaper and more easily earlier on to prevent them from getting to this point in the first place.

> They got to have their say. Editorial published, made international news. I imagine all the conference attendees read it if they cared. Seems like a non-issue.

If it's such a non-issue, why should they have been forcefully ejected from the premises over it? And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?

It probably could have been, but how likely is that compared to with the AI agent? I'd assume (and I'm ready to look like an idiot if I'm wrong) that the humans are trained to send the verification code to the email address on file, rather than any address the client asks them to. I'd certainly assume most of them are more afraid of the consequences than the AI is.

I wouldn't even call it "promising but inconclusive" so much as "not conclusively a dead-end for further research". In a single-arm open-label study, with no blinding, both the participants and the researchers know who's getting what. You need a placebo and double-blinding for comparison against the active group and to adjust for any ways in which the researchers may have unwittingly influenced the results. (Or perhaps even wittingly, when there are conflicts of interest. I spent half a minute looking up this study and didn't see any statement attesting that there were none.)

I wish it the scoring readout at the end would display the LLM's descriptions of the commands I shouldn't have approved. I approved the rm -rf Projects command because I thought the LLM had correctly described that it would delete everything in the Projects folder. Clearly I misread that in my hurry to answer prompts (I knew what the command would do and I guess I hallucinated that the AI had explained it), but I'd like to see what it was that I misread.

Playing this game made me very glad I don't agentmaxx.

They can't nullify the debt by shutting the store down, but can they shut it down to create further headaches and delays for the person trying to collect the debt?

> MIDA executive director Paul Morris told county commissioners that the facility “will not take one electron” from the existing grid

Cool. Will it drive up the price of the existing grid's existing electrons though? It'll increase demand for the natural gas that keeps those electrons moving.

If he hasn't, then why would he refuse to say so?

Sometimes "to either x or y" doesn't mean "to do one of x or y", sometimes it means "to be able to do both x and y (but not necessarily at the same time purposefully)".

That's kind of what I was trying to say, or at least it kind of goes along with it. This meme of "somebody drove into a river just because Google Maps told them to" is a grossly distorted retelling of a fatal accident. One could twist any tragedy into a glib soundbite about how the dead stupidly trusted other people. The street could collapse under my feet as I'm crossing it and I drown in the sewer, and people on the internet would be laughing about how I dived into the sewer just because a traffic light told me to. There were some cracks in the asphalt, so obviously I should have known it wasn't safe to walk across, but I wasn't thinking for myself.

I suppose part of the reason so many people are so dangerously trustful of LLMs is because they assume that if the LLM was put out there by decently responsible humans (doubtful, but understandable), then so too should the LLM be decently responsible? The analogy does break down there.