Long-term, societies based on a shared ideology don't survive. Whether because of immigration or children just not agreeing with their parents' ideology, they quickly end up with a population that doesn't share a single ideology. Then either the society learns how to deal with sharing territory but not ideology, or it kicks the non-conformers out and dies as it can't replace it's population, or it turns into a police state/cult compound. That last one doesn't end well either unless it starts out the size of a small country and manages to avoid being inside the jurisdiction of another country.

When the society is being founded by grifters and con artists, implosion's going to happen even faster.

This is probably the worst approach they could take. The biggest problem with AI and mental health is the AI encouraging the user to harm THEMSELVES, not others. The vendors need to detect when that's happening and disconnect the user from the AI until they seek help, or alter the AI to not take users down those paths in the first place. But they'll never do that.

This is where we really ought to look into the state of jurisdiction regarding businesses who are not located in a state, do not have offices in a state and do not target users in that state. This has come up before when it comes to taxes and other state laws, and I'm pretty sure it's ended up with binding rulings at the Federal Appeals Court level if not the Supreme Court level.

Some state needs to pass a law to enforce unauthorized computer access/computer trespass against people who fraudulently lie about their ages to gain access to a website. Websites should put up 'No minors allowed' and if a minor ignores that, there should be a law to penalize the minor/parents for trespass or unlawful computer access.

• "action item" = "need to do"
• "offline" = "later"

Those cover the meanings exactly or at least exactly enough that the alternatives don't change the intended meaning. By contrast, "starboard" and "port" are used because "right" and "left" are ambiguous, are they "my X", "your X" or "ship's X"? "dorsal" and "ventral" come from Latin terms used in science, there are equivalent terms in ordinary English but using the Latin allows distinguishing between casual references and technical ones ("dorsal" means different directions depending on the organism's neural tube).

A good rule of thumb is that if you use terminology when speaking to someone not in that terminology's field and expect them to understand it, it's not jargon.

"Let's touch base offline to align our bandwidth on this workflow." isn't jargon, it's buzzwords. It just translates to "Let's meet after this and make sure you understand how I want that to work.". Just use the ordinary English instead of the buzzwords. A lot of the "confusion" is probably the employees thinking "Just speak English, dumbass.".

Jargon has specific meanings that can't be quickly expressed in plain English. "hack" vs. "kludge" for example. Both have implications beyond the basic "solution to a problem" that take several sentences in English to state clearly but represent things you need to identify often enough that you can't readily spell it out in full every single time. Others, like "mis-bug" (as in "This is a mis-bug, clarify the code and docs so someone doesn't accidentally fix it.") are jargon but the plain English terms are simple enough you ought to use them most of the time.

One big difference, though: when you had to wait in line it was because there were so many people wanting tickets. In this case there's 5 people at the head of the line and each one bought thousands of tickets so there's none left for anyone else. Then they turned around and started selling to everyone else at 100x the price. If not for them, everyone else WOULD HAVE been able to get tickets at the regular price. Completely different situations.

The abysmal results are because every workplace trains people to fall for phishing scams. That change in vacation policy? The real, legitimate notification of it will be in an email from an external bulk-mailing service telling employees to click on the link included. There's nothing in it to distinguish it from a phishing attempt, and employees are supposed to trust it.

Progress is going to require workplaces, schools etc. to:

1. Send official mail from an internal address, not through any external service.
2. Have all email cryptographically signed and email clients are set up to automatically verify signatures.
3. Have information users need to know delivered through the organization's intranet site, with users directed to log in to that and check notifications for more information.

The problem is that for the studios behind the streaming services, the money isn't in the media itself. It's all in the subscription fees and advertising revenue and the ability to collect and mine data about the viewers. None of those things are available unless the viewers go to the studio's streaming service. Ironically, the things that would stop piracy in it's tracks are the very things the studios and streaming services can't afford to do because it'd bankrupt them.

They'll have a hard time "fixing" this because it's not a bug. It's not even a feature. It's an inherent part of the design and it's working exactly as intended. And since it stems from the basic requirements, fixing it's going to require coming up with new requirements and developing a new design from there. Good luck with that considering the number of parties whose own requirements include "Must NOT follow those new requirements.".

It should be "number of residents who are legally and physically able to work" (ie. no minors ineligible to work, no disabled persons, no elderly unable to work, etc.) in the calculation.

The main difference is that those other mechanisms try to prevent the LLM from doing things. "Guilt" simulation takes a different approach: penalize the LLM (cost it points) based on the damage done to the other party. So in the Prisoner's Dilemma game, defecting causes the other player to suffer punishment (lost points) which in turn causes the LLM to lose points too. The LLM's trying to minimize point loss, so the idea is it'll look for strategies that avoid causing the other player to lose points as well as trying to minimize direct point loss and it'll do this through it's own programming rather than having external constraints that it could work around.

The obvious downside is this requires feedback to the LLM about the results it produced, which in turn requires it to keep a permanent memory of every user and it's history with them. Any breakdown or inconsistency in that feedback loop causes the outcomes to get worse rather than better.

This is something easy to test by just setting up multiple AI agents and running the game. The optimal strategy is of course to always stand pat, say nothing and accept the minimal punishment when the other agent also stands pat. That, though, is only the case if all agents were programmed for "guilt" and if all interactions resulted in feedback based on the other agent's punishment. If any agent doesn't receive negative feedback for choosing to defect (isn't programmed for "guilt") or if feedback is sometimes not given, the other stable strategy is to always defect. My guess is that if they ran the simulation, that's where the agents would end up. I doubt the agents will figure out the "best" strategy, which is to initially stand pat and then return tit-for-tat until the other agent also starts doing that in which case switch back to standing pat. This requires being able to distinguish other agents from each other and memory of your history with a given other agent.

A few floors below? Hells, the scammer/ransomware squad probably outsourced the calling to Cognizant. Saves time and phone lines.

It's very critical additional data, though. The idea is the basic malware doesn't have anything truly alarming in it, so it's easier to obfuscate it to slip by the filters. Once it's running, it can download the really dangerous stuff via TXT records, which won't be checked for alarming/dangerous content, and set that up behind the filters without triggering them. It does all that in memory, without giving any indication of touching files, and then once the code's gotten root access it can persist things to files without triggering any alerts (because root's allowed to do that).