duskdozer

Right, not only are you authorized, but you are also prompted to manually complete the request, which will fail if you do not accept. However, this isn't considered sufficient by the passkey people, who do in fact want you to retype your password at each prompt.

This is why I am so concerned about passkeys. They could be a good improvement, but in practice I already see how it's going to result in Google/Apple/Microsoft/whoever seizing even more control.

The document there is laughable too, because KeepassXC is listed as "not performing User Verification" when it demands manual authorization per request. But this isn't good enough for the passkey people. Ultimately, I see any FOSS option being effectively banned from most services and all important ones. It's a parallel to how you must now be on Cloudflare's nice list or be banned from the majority of the internet.

And ruin the boonies too? American norms and laws are not conducive to making nice places to live, but they've skated by having enough land and car-first infrastructure. With the huge increase in warehouses and data centers in residential areas over the past 5-10 years, I wonder if there will be an inflection point where it finally needs to be dealt with.

I think the Japanese laws requiring strict truth in food advertising would be a good transplant.

Sure, and you could also go on Tor and buy all kinds of illegal things and they could have a hard time proving that you ordered them and not your arch nemesis to frame you. Banning those things won't stop 100% of people from buying and selling them, but it probably reduces the number who will. And more importantly, companies would be more risk averse on such a thing when they can just buy a similar product with no risk. They also will mostly avoid any GPL software entirely even though the risk there is a lawsuit from the FSF, which is a much less threatening thing than getting on the wrong side of the current US government.

G[enerative]EO is already a thing, there's no way they'll just let all that value be extracted for free.

Bans in general don't have to be and rarely will be completely enforceable in all cases. But a ban with significant enough consequences would mean most businesses wouldn't think about trying them at some point, just to avoid the risk.

Excessively bright and excessively blue lighting can also be inaccessible.

Using moonshine? As in what they list isn't a hard requirement just possibly the oldest they cared to test?

I think the big names behind the AI companies already have that problem solved. A lot of people probably won't like the solution very much though.

It's easy to frame it like this to portray them in a negative light. Many also ban pets, enforce strict curfews, force you to live in close quarters with people who you don't know and who can be dangerous to you, demand you practice their religion, separate you from partners, subject you and what they allow you to keep of your belongings to frequent searches.

I don't know about you, but that sounds horrible to me. I don't see how anyone can be surprised or aggrieved that some people choose to stay away from them under those conditions.

Well, it's probably vibecoded, so who knows what it even does?

Vote for candidates who support mitigations, contact legislators asking them to do so, at all levels of government. Live according to those policies and encourage others to do so.

Use it to transcribe directly without correcting grammar or formatting.

To me Section 230

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

I'd be surprised if they didn't have anti-downgrade fuses or something and force you to connect and update. Or just overwrite the reset image.

I don't think it's going to be any more convincing with that. At this point anyone I encounter in "normal" life already assumes that I and everyone else has and primarily uses a Google or Apple account.

If it will execute scripts, then why not?

Somewhere along the line, killing the model or the "good things" is anticipated to make them more money than not doing so.

Easier to have them follow a format, sure, but definitely not easier to have them provide useful information.

Comments as well. It's exactly the type of commenting they taught us not to do because it was useless. I'm sure it's also a negative to the LLMs as well by polluting the memory with useless info.

How do you know what the parent complains about other than this?

People are louder about things that have not yet taken hold because it's easier to stop them. The constant rumble of airplanes in the sky is a problem actually, but it's far more entrenched. Why is it difficult to understand that people notice and care about negative externalities of so-called "progress"?

No, no, it's on me. I guess I need a HUMANS.md file to pop up and remind me every time I sit at the computer....

It's a good time to archive pre-LLM copies of the programs you use and make sure you can build them.

LLM-generated comments are not permitted on this site.

I need to stop coming here; I keep "dead dove, do not eat"ing myself.

This is what it seems to be. I've had to review the LLM output from coworkers who have insisted that the "old" models are terrible but the new ones are very good. They are always discussing the latest models and their tweaks and things.

Their output is just.... not very good. For example, it may not fail tests, but it does so for wrong reasons and will fail under different conditions. Or it checks or guards for things in trivially redundant ways, like doing something like `if (x > 5 && x > 3)` that betray its lack of "knowing" what it's doing. And I can't even get answers from them anymore because they just feed anything I say into the LLM and copy/paste the response.

I'm basically being forced to code with LLMs via review through a person proxy. Or maybe they just have it hooked up to read it directly. It's maddening. It's like having a realistic enough chatbot just shuts people's brains off.

It's the natural successor to the first round of ed-tech, which both share the same purpose: create future customers. The students who grew up using Google or Microsoft laptops and office products in school go to them as adults. Making children dependent on LLMs at an early age gives you subscribers to your LLM products when they grow up.

Why is "AI literacy" supposed to be a good thing here when you're effectively contrasting it with actual literacy, like bedtime stories, or "creative literacy" like learning to draw or make games?