tygon

Just need to create systems to assign priority to issues. And then systems for those systems. And...

I cannot help, but liken this to precedents such as Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Because of this case, therapists have a duty to warn police if a patient shows clear intent to cause harm in the future. "Duty to Protect" is definitely controversial however and there is a balance to be struck. We also know tons of kids and trolls will just "say edgy stuff to bots for the lulz" that they would not say to a human therapist as well. Where do we as a society draw a line between privacy and protection? It's not an easy question to answer.

While I in no way support habitual gambling, the second you push for something like that, you will have a sizable group of "freedom activists" up in arms. More likely, I see it being more-heavily taxed to make it less appealing.

The loopholes discussed in the article 100% should be closed, making it easier for problem gamblers that want out to get out, but there will always be the convenience factor that will cause at least some damage. Ease of access also means ease of misuse unfortunately.

Scale. In the same way every 10 year old Timmy is not being hauled into court for pirating a few Drake songs, but major piracy organizations seeding millions of songs are, litigation and enforcement does selectively target bad actors based on how big of an issue they are.

The Plague is very much still around, yes. Around the world, we get a few cases every year, but we are not in the Dark Ages. Much of the reason it caused as many deaths as it did was due to a lack of understanding. We did not know what really caused disease, we did not know ships were carrying the disease vector, we did not have proper treatments, etc. Today for the cases we have, it is a lot more treatable. We of course monitor it, so we can be prepared (close off vectors of spread like airlines, for example), but there really is nothing to worry about. Happens all the time.

> I believe we'll see a shift to more organizations building their own harnesses with model routing logic to get central control over who can use what AI and for what.

I can also see middlemen agencies coming into the picture to determine token use, best model, etc. Effectively a middleman to the LLMs that will sell token use on the popular models bundled together.

While the knee-jerk reaction is to roll one's eyes, if it gets people that would otherwise not vote to be a bit educated and go out and make their voices heard, I am all for it. Yes, this has the potential for abuse and needs to be watched closely, but is this worse than the classic "I asked my coworker and..." type of non-involvement many already have? Not really and my hope is that people will only use it as a stepping stone to more research.

> Local races are incredibly difficult to find information on

Big time. At best in more rural areas, you will find a facebook page for the candidate. Sometimes, there is nothing they put out and just maybe one of those "we interviewed the candidate and this is what they said" type sites. Sometimes, nothing at all and it is a real shame. It would solve a lot of problems if we knew more about our local school administrations, mayors, sheriffs, etc.

This sentiment gets echoed over and over. While I can certainly see the value in human-created creative works, if the subject is pure facts, there are only so many ways to state the facts without being caught in the weeds and missing your entire point.

Moreover, people are finding it hard to differentiate what is an is not AI-generated with newer models, often attributing original work with those of LLMs. It has just become an easy scapegoat for lazy comprehension and a desire to do less. You are jumping at AI boogeymen.

Just about the only thing here I can level with you on is, yes, AI is far from perfect and will continue to advance. Otherwise, so much of this reads as fruity prose to excuse apathy.

Hehe...AI was truly only ever one high school bully away from killing us all.

I chuckled a little when I read

> If you are a student, you have to let go of the idea that you first acquire skills and basic knowledge and then solve problems

and my brain instantly equated it to "we want a new graduate with 30 years of experience." You always will need to build some basis of fundamentals before you can solve problems.

You will always need some fundamental basis of understanding. You cannot bake a new kind of cake if you do not know what preheating is. I believe that is why they give the PhD example. The bulk of education comes before a PhD. You cannot start with a complex problem and be expected to solve it without acquiring knowledge beforehand.