It's all about our precious bodily fluids.

Did you report back and inform the LLM of the solution, so it could improve its answers?

Also, does /. permit LLMs to drag the /. swamp and scrape out these nuggets?

It's the opposite of a dummy load in electronics. Dummy loads are intended to safely dissipate power, while AI bots are intended to broadcast...

From Sec 230a:

(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:

(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

From the beginning:

- The Internet has developed and expanded sufficiently that it no longer needs the protection nor encouragement offered via this legislation.
- The development of the Internet has actually reduced and limited users' control over the information they have access to. That is censorship, for those of you in Rio Linda.
- The development of censorship, protected by Sec 230, has challenged the development of true diversity of political discourse, unless you're considering false information and misrepresentation to be diversity. And there is an argument for that.
- The Internet is suffering under implicit government regulation. Sec 230 here is somewhat defeating one of its own stated purposes.
- Americans, and indeed the world, are relying on the Internet so much more than they did prior to enactment of Sec 230. it is even more important now.

Sec 230 is used to permit Internet 'publishers' to escape responsibility for their censorship, promotion, and fabrications., Not that fabrication in the American press is anything new, and has never needed legislative protection before. But the Internet is the current means of yellow journalism, and as such needs nor should have protection beyond the First Amendment. Repeal it now.

The real surprise here is that the people who run WaPo think the AI-generated posts are different than their regular WaPo-generated posts...

Actually, they knew that all along. They just had to issue disclaimers to redirect the prols to the preexisting sources of misinformation. And to run interference, adding an apparent air of legitimacy to the human-generated content.

230 prevents sites from being prosecuted. So, right now, they do b all moderation of any kind (except to eliminate speech for the other side).

Remove 230 and sites become liable for most of the abuses. Those sites don't have anything like the pockets of those abusing them. The sites have two options - risk a lot of lawsuits (as they're softer targets) or become "private" (which avoids any liability as nobody who would be bothered would be bothered spending money on them). Both of these deal with the issue - the first by getting rid of the abusers, the second by getting rid of the easily-swayed.

USENET predates 230.
Slashdot predates 230.
Hell, back then we also had Kuro5hin and Technocrat.

Post-230, we have X and Facebook trying to out-extreme each other, rampant fraud, corruption on an unimaginable scale, etc etc.

What has 230 ever done for us? (And I'm pretty sure we already had roads and aqueducts...)

I'd disagree.

Multiple examples of fraudulent coercion in elections, multiple examples of American plutocrats attempting to trigger armed insurrections in European nations, multiple "free speech" spaces that are "free speech" only if you're on the side that they support, and multiple suicides from cyberharassment, doxing, and swatting, along with a few murder-by-swatting events.

But very very very little evidence of any actual benefits. With a SNR that would look great on a punk album but is terrible for actually trying to get anything done, there is absolutely no meaningful evidence anyone has actually benefitted. Hell, take Slashdot. Has SNR gone up or down since this law? Slashdot is a lot older than 230 and I can tell you for a fact that SNR has dropped. That is NOT a benefit.

I wish I could say I'm surprised.

However, this has been a consistent pattern that goes back to the 1930s and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you corected that to the 1830s. Companies know that you make the most money by selling to both sides.

Piling on, Arizona Corporation Commission races are indeed contentious. They bring out activists that desperately want to turn Arizona into a California clone.

And I doubt the ACC will try to force this datacenter on Chandler. If you wonder how our Democrat Governor thinks of things, she is busy celebrating an "Ag-to-Urban” Groundwater Conservation Approval", just to ensure 825 new homes can be built in Buckeye, which were blocked because metro Phoenix does not have sufficient assurances of water supply for the next 100 years to permit further growth in that city.

It's darned hard to oppose development in Arizona. Too many stakeholders want to make their profits. Even Katie Hobbs will bow to them. Oh, wait, she bows to whoever greases the skids.

This will be great for Haiku, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD installs, there's not the remotest possibility there'll be binaries for these. Not because the software couldn't be ported, but because the sorts of people politicians hire to write software would never be able to figure out the installer.

You had to go anonymous to post this? Pathetique...

Check the 3 year PMI at Trading Economics. Not obvious that manufacturing activity in the US has done anything but increase over the last 12+ months.

You have different statistics? Of course, we know what statistics are, don't we? Even that site has conflicting data, because there is no single measure that tells us much. Bitterness is not an acceptable economic policy.

"Eliminating that incredible poison, toxic in every stage of its extraction, use, and disposal, to the extent feasible is an obvious priority"

My point, which none of the replies address, is: who is it a priority for? Only for the countries that are doing about 5% of global emissions. Whether we believe there is a climate crisis or not, 95% of the world doesn't, and are acting accordingly.

What people in the English speaking countries need to recognize is that the world is not going to lower emissions. This is not about whether we believe, whether I personally believe, whether there really is a crisis or not.

Its about the simple fact that in 40 years of trying the advocates of the reality of a crisis have failed to persuade the world of their point of view. So any sensible policy has to accept this, and has to accept that global action is not happening and is not going to happen.

This is reality, and its the only sensible starting point for policy discussions. The world in which policy is formulated and implemented will be one in which only supplies of fossil fuel are the limiting factor for global emissions.

Accept this, because its reality. Then figure out whether in such a world your national policies make any sense, what effects if any they will have. The answer will mostly be that they do nothing at all.

For example, the UK is supposedly moving to net zero in power generation, and is also supposedly moving to ban the sale of all except EVs in 2030. The question to ask is: what difference will that make to the world and global emissions in a world in which 95% of the emissions are done by countries who don't care one way or the other and have no intention of reducing their emissions?

The answer is, it will make no difference whatever. Same goes by the way for the US, which has now opted out anyway. No presently proposed policies in the English speaking countries will make the slightest contribution to lowering global emissions. This is the way the world is, whether we like it or not.

Now the question is, why do you still want to do these things? This is the important, hard and inconvenient question. Its analogous to the question about antibiotics. Refusing to treat your child with them will make no difference to global antibiotic resistance. Accept that, because its the truth. Now, why do you still want to refuse?