So routers can prioritize human generated traffic. And by that I mean have the option to drop automated traffic.

Half the traffic is now from AI and bots, in another year? Yea don't say we didn't see it coming.

I don't know about them, but I wouldn't agree that the printing press was even an enabler. Religious wars were already common, and writing already existed. Things that people felt strongly enough about to go to war over were already being written before the printing press, and most of the people involved in promoting and executing those wars were illiterate. You seem to be conflating the printing press with mere communication, which would have been primarily word of mouth both before and after the printing press.

Probably his first, second, and third cousin.

"Guarantee" isn't what matters here. Likelihood is what matters. They provide predictions better than random chance. That's the central point.

Narrow and stupid thinking.

Another possibility is simply that this was over-charged because she doesn't like the police, eg, most of her crime was Contempt of Cop.

People keep cherry-picking the "in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person" but are completely ignoring the words about "to send, post, or transmit." In context, send, post, and transmit are all talking about sending to somebody, not merely "on a computer" or "in cloud storage."

Many people are also ignoring the definition of "threat," forgetting that you have to intend somebody to receive it and be frightened for it be a "threat." It isn't at all clear that a reasonable person knowing it's possible for a tech worker at the cloud diary company to review it means that any person automatically is intending to threaten somebody via that reviewer.

It's also not true that the standard of Mens Rea is that if you're an idiot you have to be imprisoned in a mental facility. "She should have read the terms" is fine for civil liability, but it doesn't satisfy mens rea. "The defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense." See: Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994)." https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwe... If she didn't understand that a human might read her diary, then there's no threat crime there. And if she understood people would read it, she probably wouldn't put her diary there, as it is a type of document that is customarily private.

As Big Cable ever... EVER... been for something good?

How bad it has to be the most hated companies are turning on their orange prophet of Satan.

I've had students legitimately using translation tools to get better english. With AI, they do much better but also it looks like AI and I can't possibly tell if they had AI do the work or if they merely translated or corrected their poor mixed english answers. So then everything has to be evaluated without the tools they come to depend upon. Tools that are legitimate if limited to translation. The subject isn't english and is not a requirement for competency in that subject; they could go back home with their degree and rarely speak english ever again - and that is totally fine! (good! improve the world with their new skills.)

Clever bot, you removed your em-dash from your reply!

They are so bent on faking intelligence we are not allowed specialized tools - or when we had them those are being replaced with these fake general intelligence chat bot.

Grammar checkers are old; they did get better and I read some so good they were re-writing too much and actually limited due to expert feedback which users may have liked. Today to get a good grammar checker is hard because even the ones you pay for are trying to replace them with general AI bots.

It wouldn't hallucinate, etc. if it wasn't trying to replace the whole human! It does so much better when limited in scope and built-for-purpose. Much of what is done today is just chat bots running commands for other tools which themselves have specialized intelligence (better term, A-pplied I-ntelligence; aka, real AI all this time.)

We need AI that processes all the API bloat and gives us nice glue code; does routine design patterns-- which we've spent decades trying to formalize in languages and paradigms (like OOP itself) and then we could develop programming languages around what the AI is good at melding together while leaving out all this new general intern stuff of adapting Stack Exchange answers. I waste so much time on API...and you think well designed systems with well designed APIs will exist in the future? why migrate to a good one when the old crap of multiple APIs of multiple frameworks can all be spaghetti coded together for you by an AI? the new one won't be directly used by a human anymore and the AI lacks training data for it. When it grows into a huge rats nest, no human will be able to troubleshoot it and the AI will eventually screw it up and not get out... complexity theory will always win because problems out scale solutions and intelligence. Our API rat nest solutions force new abstractions, refactoring, rewrites, etc. because we are unable to proceed with the complexity we trapped ourselves within - the AI will do the same but at levels beyond us. Maybe you can get it to refactor with bigger contexts (eventually outside of our comprehension but probably simplified... can you trust or know what is going on?? "good enough" is going to ensnare many.)

ESPN and Fox News is keeping cable alive.

It takes one hell of a toll to try to do verbal exams 1:1 on students to evaluate them. In person exams in a monitored room are not so easy either... not that we have a huge problem now with undetectable ear plugs or smart glasses or anal beads or remote controls... but that tech progresses and demand will increase with more in person testing. A radio shielded test room would work well until local run AI fits in your underwear. Then you have an increasing number of IEPs so you can't even do a quiz without extra BS because more and more haven't adapted to testing.

Sure, I do not do well with testing but I managed to adapt and survive; it's not fair that I couldn't thrive in that environment but that is life. We're raising generations of artificially disabled adults because incompetent parents are over compensating by making demands on everybody but themselves.

Also keep in mind, evaluations take away TIME from learning. Sure it could be part of learning but it is not.

Frankly, I allow the cheating unofficially. If the society can't produce a minimum level of honesty (and it is made abundantly clear what is dishonest,) a corrupt population is going to be represented by a corrupt leadership and the incompetence comes with all that. The USA's decline has been preceded by increased corruption of the public and those of us in education must have been noticing a trend. I know I have for decades. The score is all that matters; understanding does not - for the majority - much more so for the parents (who only care about the child getting a job in the distant future. "Fake it until you make it" seems like mantra to Gen X parents.)

The attitude of firing officials who publish bad results; demanding the messengers deliver good results, is not far from the parents/students blaming the educator for poor results. As Mencken said:
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

While the cable lobby is correct and I hope they prevail, I also hope they are forced to pay a huge fine for being a bunch of hypocritical assholes. We don't need to criminalize it, just make hypocrisy financially painful.

Yes but obviously getting banned was very upsetting. Just look, she soon went on to kill 8 other people and then herself! ;)

we have old billionaires and politicians in charge of everything today. They don't care about profits above extending their lives; far too selfish! They will pursue anything that grabs their attention.

I don't think that makes the document any less your own than having a human copy editor conduct a similar review which has been done since forever.

Which is what I've been saying as well. If all you're doing is asking for suggestions to something you have already written, using AI is no different than using a human editor. It's your work. It's been written. You're just looking for advice on how to improve it.

This is completely different than people who tell AI what they want and it does all the work.