So this time the schools will be closed *and* the children will be lobotomized to make damn sure they're getting stupider.

Exactly. Schools should be kept open and kids should not be quarantine for a measly disease. Let their natural immunity take over. So what if a few have to die. If that means keeping things running, so be it. After all, if parents don't care if their kid dies from a measly disease, why should anyone else care?

You do realize doctors were prescribing this during the pandemic to alleviate symptoms? It's dummies like you that push these false narratives.

Which of course it had no effect on. None. Zero. No one ever demonstrated any effect an anti-parasitic could have on a virus.

The only one lying is you and people like you who "did their research".

Men are the weaker sex. There, I said it. As proof I offer all those who whine about women on OnlyFans making hundreds of thousands of dollars (potentially millions). Tell me, how do those women make all that money? Who is paying them?

As a follow up, for centuries men held sway in everything. It's why they like to point out the lack of female scientists, artists, etc. The reason of course is women were prevented, both physicallly and legally, from being scientists, artists, etc. Until 1974 women in the U.S. couldn't have a credit card in their own name.

Once women started being treated as equals (still not there), things changed. Men no longer had a god-given right to the front office. The old boys club broke down. Women showed there was no difference between what a man did or woman did (with few exceptions). And that scares men. It's why we have such dim bulbs like Peterson* and Tate and many others who do nothing but denegrate women. Everything their life revolved around (only men) is gone and they're scared because now they have to compete and realize they're out of their league. They're not as "good" as they thought they were when compared to women and blame all their ills on women. When boys and young men listen to these dullards they come to the same conclusion. Their life is so bad because of women.

Also, there is genetics. Boys take longer to emotionally mature than women. Ask any teacher. The ones causing problems will invariably be a boy, not a girl. This means, instead of paying attention in school, they're already falling behind by not learning the basics which would prepare them for more advanced studies later on. It's one reason we keep hearing, "You don't have to go to college. You can learn a trade." What they don't tell you is every trade uses the basics (math in particular) to do their job. If boys didn't learn the basics in school, what kind of tradesmen do you think they'll be?

* Peterson once said the idea that women have been discriminated against is appalling. Apparently the fact women couldn't vote until recently isn't discrimination, let alone all the other things women weren't allowed to do simply because they are women.

It came from their school by one of their students. A fake research paper, or one whose conculsions can't be corroborated, impinges on their reputation. They're the ones who would have been given first notice before publication.

Any school has the right to do the same.

Phase 1 trials can consist of as few as twenty subjects, although fifty is more common. It's basically there to make sure you don't kill or injure hundreds of test subjects in the larger trials with the dosage and protocol you intend to use. Only about a quarter of drugs which are rejected as unsafe are rejected at Phase 1. There have been drug trials halted because they killed dozens of people *in phase 3*.

Ultimately just 10% of drugs that pass Phase 1 get approved. The rest are either too dangerous or too ineffective.

The compassionate use exception carved out by the Federal Try Act is specifically targeted at people who have little or nothing to lose. It kills a few people who were going to die anyway, but in a few very rare cases it may have saved a few individuals. So you can argue from a utilitarian standpoint that it's ethical to make this exception for terminally ill patients because the exception does more good than harm. But extending the exception to people who aren't terminally ill will do more harm than good, just going by the number of treatments that prove unsafe *after* Phase 1.

and comparing resistance to early reactions against spell-check

With spell check, you knew you were receiving the correct spelling. With ChatGPT, or other LLMs, you can, and will, be told things which aren't remotely true. For example, Google's AI said to use glue to hold cheese on your pizza.

Recently, that thing called Grok has been deliberately programmed to spew nonsensical bullshit about "genocide" in South African farmers REGARDLESS of the topic being discussed.

Until things get worked out, comparing ChatGPT, or any LLM, to spell check is a nonsensical comparison.

Dude, have you thought that one through?

Yes. Yes we have.

That's why I'm not investing in AI stocks. I don't believe the pitch the companies are making to investors. That doesn't mean that LLMs aren't a tremendous technological achievement that could be very useful.

Whether it's a net good for mankind, I'm skeptical. But as long as it exists, use it cautiously and wisely.

Coinbase is saying it could cost up to $400 million for remediation AND reimbursement to customers. The $20 million is on top of this, if it is ever paid out.

What I've been saying all along is that the biggest problem with the technology isn't going to be the technology per se. It's going to be the people who use it being lazy, credulous, and ignorant of the technology's limitations.

The bottom line is that as it stands LLM isn't any good for what these bozos are using it for: saving labor creating a brief. You still have to do the legal research and feed it the relevant cases, instructing it not to cite any other cases, then check its characterization of that case law for correctness. In other words, you still have to do all the hard work, so it's hardly worth using if all you are interested in is getting an acceptable brief quickly.

But if you *have* done all that work, it's quite safe to use AI to improve your brief, for example tightening up your prose. You can use it to brainstorm arguments. You can use it to check your brief for obvious counter-arguments you missed. There's absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers *who know what they're doing* using AI to improve their work. It just can't *do* their work for them.

I thought of provisioning as an obstacle, but it's not necessarily a difficult one for an actor with "national means" to overcome. Most likely none of the low-cost service providers who provide service for things like GPS trackers would bat an eye if you had a shell company set up a few hundred or even a thousand devices. Just tell them you're doing vehicle tracking or something like that. China's MSS could even set up a bogus cell tower near their target sites, stringray style. The main target of such an attack wouldn't be the device itself, or even the facility, but the grid, possibly in conjunction with another type of attack to impede recovery.

That said, I don't think that's what these things are there for. I think it's just a case of the vendor finding it convenient to sell the same SKU to all its customers. But you're right, this is all just a conjecture. The possibility merits investigation, even if it's not likely.

While steel is one of the most recyclable materials there is, concrete isn't that great. Most concrete "recycling" would be more accurately characterized as "downcycling" -- using old crushed concrete for road beds for example. It is possible to reuse old crushed concrete as aggregate in new concrete, which does technically count as "recycling", but it doesn't address the single most significant environmental impact of concrete, the carbon emissions of cement production.

Anytime you propose replacing X with Y, both X and Y will have environmental impacts; you just think that the impacts of Y aren't as bad. This is a new material, and we can't quantify what its impacts will be, but they'll be there. Service life plays a role here too and we don't know what that is. If a beam made out of this stuff lasts as long as a steel beam, that'll almost certainly be a carbon footprint win, but if you have to replace it ten times it might not be.