That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

That's what I just said.

Here's where the summary goes wrong:

Artificial Intelligence is in fact many kinds of technologies. People conflate LLMs with the whole thing because its the first kind of AI that an average person with no technical knowledge could use after a fashion.

But nobody is going to design a new rocket engine in ChatGPT. They're going to use some other kind of AI that work on problems on processes that the average person can't even conceive of -- like design optimization where there are potentially hundreds of parameters to tweak. Some of the underlying technology may have similarities -- like "neural nets" , which are just collections of mathematical matrices that encoded likelihoods underneath, not realistic models of biological neural systems. It shouldn't be surprising that a collection of matrices containing parameters describing weighted relations between features should have a wide variety of applications. That's just math; it's just sexier to call it "AI".

Is this about Trump, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Cotton, Cruz, and Vance all saying that people should stop going to college?

Even the summary says

How you got from "cross-demographic survey results" to "conspiracy of all republicans" seems a bit of a leap. If the Republicans *actually have* found a way to exert that much influence on the views of every demographic group, the Democrats might as well just pack their bags and go home, they're done forever.

I think in reality this is just a survey detecting people noticing exploding tuition costs and feeling bleak about the future job market, especially being displaced by technology.

The illusion of intelligence evaporates if you use these systems for more than a few minutes.

Using AI effectively requires, ironically, advanced thinking skills and abilities. It's not going to make stupid people as smart as smart people, it's going to make smart people smarter and stupid people stupider. If you can't outthink the AI, there's no place for you.

Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He may have had a moral aversion to slavery, but it was secondary to his economic concerns. He believed that slavery could continue in the South but should not be extended into the western territories, primarily because it limited economic opportunities for white laborers, who would otherwise have to compete with enslaved workers.

From an economic perspective, he was right. The Southern slave system enriched a small aristocratic elite—roughly 5% of whites—while offering poor whites very limited upward mobility.

The politics of the era were far more complicated than the simplified narrative of a uniformly radical abolitionist North confronting a uniformly pro-secession South. This oversimplification is largely an artifact of neo-Confederate historical revisionism. In reality, the North was deeply racist by modern standards, support for Southern secession was far from universal, and many secession conventions were marked by severe democratic irregularities, including voter intimidation.

The current coalescence of anti-science attitudes and neo-Confederate interpretations of the Civil War is not accidental. Both reflect a willingness to supplant scholarship with narratives that are more “correct” ideologically. This tendency is universal—everyone does it to some degree—but in these cases, it is profoundly anti-intellectual: inconvenient evidence is simply ignored or dismissed. As in the antebellum South, this lack of critical thought is being exploited to entrench an economic elite. It keeps people focused on fears over vaccinations or immigrant labor while policies serving elite interests are quietly enacted.

It's different from humans in that human opinions, expertise and intelligence are rooted in their experience. Good or bad, and inconsistent as it is, it is far, far more stable than AI. If you've ever tried to work at a long running task with generative AI, the crash in performance as the context rots is very, very noticeable, and it's intrinsic to the technology. Work with a human long enough, and you will see the faults in his reasoning, sure, but it's just as good or bad as it was at the beginning.

Correct. This is why I don't like the term "hallucinate". AIs don't experience hallucinations, because they don't experience anything. The problem they have would more correctly be called, in psychology terms "confabulation" -- they patch up holes in their knowledge by making up plausible sounding facts.

I have experimented with AI assistance for certain tasks, and find that generative AI absolutely passes the Turing test for short sessions -- if anything it's too good; too fast; too well-informed. But the longer the session goes, the more the illusion of intelligence evaporates.

This is because under the hood, what AI is doing is a bunch of linear algebra. The "model" is a set of matrices, and the "context" is a set of vectors representing your session up to the current point, augmented during each prompt response by results from Internet searches. The problem is, the "context" takes up lots of expensive high performance video RAM, and every user only gets so much of that. When you run out of space for your context, the older stuff drops out of the context. This is why credibility drops the longer a session runs. You start with a nice empty context, and you bring in some internet search results and run them through the model and it all makes sense. When you start throwing out parts of the context, the context turns into inconsistent mush.

Slashdot itself has had a bevy of articles over the years (such as
this) about the harms of social media to developing adolescents.

Is Slashdot part of the propaganda campaign to wipe out digital anonymity?

The data on harms is at least a big chunk of the motivation. Maybe the response to it is a moral panic or maybe the response is proportionate to the evidence. But I think it's going to win out in terms of policy.

If you don't like the proposed solution, I think you better start promoting a better way to implement this kind of intervention that still preserves the protections you care about.

Or people are going to go with the not-better way.

It probably makes more sense given their scale for them to have their own power generation -- solar, wind, and battery storage, maybe gas turbines for extended periods of low renewable availability.

In fact, you could take it further. You could designate town-sized areas for multiple companies' data centers, served by an electricity source (possibly nuclear) and water reclamation and recycling centers providing zero carbon emissions and minimal environmental impact. It would be served by a compact, robust, and completely sepate electrical grid of its own, reducing costs for the data centers and isolating residential customers from the impact of their elecrical use. It would also economically concentrate data centers for businesses providing services they need,reducing costs and increasing profits all around.

With a president who solves an existential threat by finding the best expert he can find, and using his own formidable political skills and charisma to run interference for that expert.

Seriously, Comacho was a meathead, but Iâ(TM)d vote for him.

It's in the name.

Summary of the entire silly discussion:

a) If one favors cats over birds, cats are pets, birds are food.

b) If one favors birds over cats, birds are pets, cats are pests.

Options not included in the discussion, but welcome to make things even livelier:

d) If one favors both birds and cats, both are pets and cats walk with bright red collars and bells so the cats can roam freely and the birds can survive.

e) If one favor neither, all are hunting targets.

f) If one favors dogs, they need come and say something offtopic.

g) If one's a fundamentalist Christian nutcase, all animals are automatons whose existence serves the sole purpose of pleasuring humans, and they won't be in Heaven because they lack souls.

h) If one's a Muslim, cats are clean and you're a sinner.

i) If one's...

Etc. etc. etc.

Kinda. The US had no officially designed language from July 4th, 1776, to February 28, 2025. English was the most used language, but not a legal requirement.

Since March 1st, 2025, there's an Executive Order signed by Trump determining that English is the official language of the United States. Executive Orders are valid until a President cancels them, so we can presume that at least in the period from March 1st, 2025, to January 20th, 2029, the US will indeed have an official language. Coming January 21st, 2029, depending on who was elected for President, it may cease having one, thus going back to its traditional approach.

To make this truly a new default would require a more permanent law than an Executive Order, preferably a Constitutional Amendment. That's unlikely though. So we may well see a situation in which the US alternates having and not having an official language in timespans of 4 to 8 years each.

Let me get this straight: you're actually, for real, in favor of hidden fees, so a business can tell you that you owe them $x more than you agreed to pay for, and now you're obliged to pay?