Uhhrrr

Yes! Eclectic, and if you text or call, a human will often respond.

In the first paragraph, "The goal isn't rigor, it's intuition that survives contact with real systems".

Yes, they reversed course after the court packing threat.

Before the court packing threat, they were limiting the federal government's power to regulate commerce within states. Which is a power it doesn't actually have.

Why were no examples given?

Did you read the paper? Are there assumptions with which you disagree?

I should mention that the Remain advocate estimates of 3.6-6.0 were for a time frame of two years: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analy...

For comparison, Remain advocates predicted a fall in GDP of 3.6-6.0%:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/brexit-would-put-our-...

Looking again at the article, I see that there are about 5 paragraphs about Railway and 30 about the agent (and, again, zero reflection about their own culpability).

This meta-analysis puts it at 67%: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

What data have you seen which doesn't support it?

If you look at the article, its title is, "An AI agent deleted our production database. It confessed in writing." To me this seems to be pretty clearly focusing on the AI agent. Then if you read the article, it attributes a lot of actions to the agent, and zero responsibility to the humans running the agent. It seems to be an anti-ad for the person's business.

The reason is clearly "signaling", because they certainly weren't furthering discussion.

If you actually follow the links you posted, you will see that he didn't create a meme coin and didn't rug pull it. Someone else made the coin and set it up so he got transfer fees.

I have only ever gotten thanks and net positive points for posting archive links.

The software is never accountable, so the human running it is always accountable.

Ok, I went and looked at his last 50 or so tweets. I didn't see anything that supports what you are saying.

That is a good example of "dumb shit". No one believes Musk is a Nazi, but they try to make hay with it anyway.

The very first clip is video of Cory Booker.

The last couple sentences tie things up really nicely.

If you don't review what the product does, you are irresponsible for the product.

Put an ORM in your private repo which randomly 1% of the time calls DROP TABLE.

When I read SoaNM, I quickly realized that it had been used as a style guide for several later books, and most long-form tech articles in Wired, the NYT, etc.

Yes, because trusting LLM output is a great way to be in the bottom x%.

In this case you would replace the human.

The humans are not scapegoats, because they are capable of taking on responsibility.

There is a point to using LLMs. They can save time by doing a first pass. But when they do the last pass, disasters will follow.

Yes, of course, and the company which removes human experts should expect things to fail in the manner that things usually fail when you remove your internal experts.

The two errors, then, were that the LLM hallucinated something, and that a human trusted the LLM without reasoning about its answer. The fix for this common pattern is to reason about LLM outputs before making use of them.

I'm trying to understand better. You said "Thiel is on the record in many ways that would justify the GPs statement."

And your support for this "on the record in many ways" claim was a single quote, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."

Are you basing your claim about Thiel's trustworthiness on a belief that only people with faith in democracy can be trustworthy?

Edit: For example, Tocqueville wrote, "Some have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep the boundaries of justice and reason in those affairs which are peculiarly its own; and that consequently full power may be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this is the language of a slave." Do you find him untrustworthy now?

This is an incomplete quote from a pro-freedom essay: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

Edit: Also, that quote does not provide evidence that he is "on the record" saying he would abuse access or make health or security worse.

Thiel is on the record in many ways that would justify the GPs statement.

Thiel is on the record saying he would use the data to make health and security worse? On the record saying he would abuse access? AFAICT this is not true.