vivekd

It was compulsory during COVID and it became optional later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArriveCAN

but I think the parents counterpoint was that the important parts of the internet (paying bills, buying things, registering for classes) don't require or presuppose anonymity.

Sure, but looking at this from a purely business perspective - I wonder how many customers would panic or jump ship rather than be grateful when notified of an attack. But I think it could work as an optional feature for paid accounts if it was marketed properly

I don't think any system can do much if things have degraded to the point where armed gangs are running around with impunity. I think systems (paper or otherwise) presuppose a certain level of functional civil society

I think the benefit here is that bias is easier to identify in an AI and if it's easier to identify it's easier to control and implement bias reduction mechanisms. Humans are much less upfront about their biases

I believe your statement can be 100% true without affecting the truth of the parents statement. It's possible for a government to charge high taxes and have high social spending while also funneling larger and larger amounts from the poor to the rich through regulations and government agencies that favor and act for the interests of the rich.

My issue with this line of thinking is not that it's wrong but it's being manipulated by silicon valley.

Open AI is not arguing that AI is harmless they are agreeing it's dangerous. They are using that to promote their product and hype it up as world changing. But more worrying they're advocating for regulations, presumably the sort that would make it more difficult for competition to come in.

I think we can talk about the potential dangers of AI. But that should include a discussion on how to best deal with that and consciousness of how fear of AI might be manipulated by silicon valley.

Especially when that fear involves misrepresentation - eg. AI being presented to the public as self directed artificial consciousness rather than algorithms that mimic certain reasoning capabilities

I also find it's a great sanity check. Ideas that seem good in my head often fail when I put them into words. Especially when I outline it in step by step format

I wonder if there is a practical test of this question? Are there any moderately successful blogs written purely by an LLM with a human just doing the prompts.

As far as I know there aren't any but I look forward to being corrected

That would be a reasonable I objection if it looked as if there was a risk of that. Everything I've heard from Zelynski so far tells me that Ukraine will be involved and they will have the final say

I think we can have peace talks - like what is happening. Or if we believe Russia is too great a threat we can have all out war against Russia involving NATO. Both those outcomes would be acceptable.

What is not acceptable to me is the current status quo of Ukraine and only Ukrainian lives being lost while the rest of the world funds it with money and weapons while insisting there must be no peace talks

I donno I like AI, I don't use it often but when I do I've found it useful and impressive. It's really improved quality of life when it comes to having something to read over my work or help with finding small bits of info. I also like self checkout because this it reduced wait times at the store.

I think people are always resistant to change. People didn't like ATMs when they first came out either. I think it's improved things.

chat GPT and Gemini both provide advice on how to care for babies. I think in the end you have to have faith in people to also use their common sense, discretion and not blindly believe or act on everything a bot tells them.

I think the same is true for an AI giving religious advice - you have to exercise a bit of faith in the readership and, perhaps in this case , also faith in the ultimate guidance of the divine. Faith that they're not going to make serious mortal or religious decision by unquestioningly following a chatbot

If we take this thinking to its logical conclusion we should put all our efforts as a civilization to getting rid of all misinformation that may harm babies whether online or spoken. And every religious person should do nothing but have flame wars and censorship campaigns about any flase religious information that has any chance of affecting a person's salvation.

The author seems to be in a purity spiral and seems to be taking an overly hardline interpretation of the religion

you can just google scrupulosity or scrupulouness and find writing on it by various apologetics.

In religious communities we would call such an attitude scrupulosity. It refers to a sort of religious OCD, a paralyzing fixation on the rules and a demand for unrealistic standards of perfection.

According to Christian teaching, such an attitude comes from a lack of faith. A lack of belief that God is ultimately in control, and an understanding that for all the imperfections and flaws that we as humans inevitably bring to the table, god can still work through those imperfections.

I mean if a book or a peice of writing can be divinely inspired I don't see why am llm can't. Both are pieces of technology at the end of the day

I understand the author's conserns but I wonder of his standard of "true" is a bit unrealistic. Maybe the standard should be "less false than the average human produced work."

Yes a human expert who is devoted to uncovering and communicating truth will do much better than an llm. But that is not what most of the content in the world consists of.

Most content is written by people with questionable expertise who write with goals like fame or viewership numbers or advertising dollars. Most content on the internet or in the world does not seem to be written with the goal of uncovering truth.

To create a more truthful world AI doesn't have to be as accurate as an expert. It just has to be more accurate than average. And in many areas, that's a very low bar.

To choose a less controversial area than religion, I think adding AI to nutrition advice on the internet will be an improvement. It's true you will inevitably get inaccurate advice communicated with confidence, but any AI trained on any kind of credible scholarship for will still be miles ahead of Internet nutritional advice that is often filled with zany pseudoscience.

Yes it will produce inaccurate results but on average the information will be more accurate than what already exists and what is currently being perpetuated

you're right, my statement is an extreme oversimplification and there are situations where the constitution does apply to noncitizens (like due process during deportation) or places where things are unclear (if speech of foreign nationals were being regulated). But this case where we are talking about a foreign media platform's right to operate in the US without any reference to the content they are broadcasting... this seems to be one of those rare clear cut cases. I mean no one saw any issue with America effectively banning RT.

There were some people on here saying that national security is just a pretense and the government is actually doing this because they dislike some of the content being posted on TikTok. I don't know if that's the case but if it were then I would concede there is a first amendment issue. But absent that I think it's safe to say that this case doesn't raise the first amendment.

That's true and that's actually something the courts consider. The standard is unreasonable burden. So it's not necessarily anything that makes speech harder, but if it does make speech unreasonably burdensome then it would run afoul of the first amendment.

So if the alternative places where such speech could be hosted were extremely limited, expensive or very difficult to use then the law banning a platform could create an unreasonable burden.

after certain kinds of talks became popular congress would tell them that they are no longer allowed to let Americans in,

I think if that were the situation then yes the first amendment would be in issue. But I don't think anyone is saying that this is happening here. As I understand it this has nothing to do with what anyone is saying on TikTok and there are no social or protest movements gaining ground on TikTok that the government is trying to suppress. The only issue here is the foreign ownership and how that ownership is used. I don't think anyone is saying the government is doing this to silence any TikTok users

I think what you raise is something the courts should consider if the government were trying to shut down a platform because of what it's users were doing on it. But it's not a live issue in this case. There is no allegation that the US seeks to suppress TikTok because of what Americans are posting on it. TikTok isn't saying the government is doing that and I don't believe the government is seeking to control the speech of TikTok users. The consern seems to be more about who controls the algorithm and data collection (a foreign state with adversarial interests) and it seems to me that it has nothing to do with anything Americans are posting on TikTok. I mean the content on TikTok isn't all that political or revolutionary

I don't know if it's a free speech issue but legally speaking it's definitely not a first amendment issue because the law targets foreign corporations and the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign entities

Half the people in Vancouver are thinking about leaving and 25% want to leave within the next 5 years. People are leaving in droves largely because of costs. That seems to make the parents point - that the ecnomic benefits from immigration accrue to the few and the wealthy while making life harder for average people

https://vancouversun.com/news/survey-finds-half-of-metro-van...

I can sympathize with it because I live in Toronto and am also thinking about leaving. Do I hate immigrants, no there aren't actually that many immigrants in the city core where I live. But certaintly there is an affordability crsis that has gripped the city and the country and wages seemed to be supressed and there seems to be less job opportunities (likely due to all that extra labour coming in)

I donno if it entirely wrong to blame foreigners. If you have a bunch of silicon valley digital nomads flying to Spain and buing and selling houses to each other I can see how that could easily leave locals out of the housing market. That seems like something that government should control against if locals can't affording housing.

I imagine that if a bunch of rich people decided to treat Spanish homes like stocks (holding and flipping) it would be pretty easy to get high prices and bubbles. Doesn't it follow from suppy and demand?

Increase the supply, and the prices will go down.

what's wrong with tackling both demand and supply. Why shouldn't spain do both - build more homes to tackle supply while also curbing foreign home ownership to tackle infalted demand

I remember an uproar about building a nuclear reactor here in Canada because of a predicted 27 billion dollar cost. 40 billion euros?!

If it's going to be like this then I think net 0 requires a different form of government or for private power generation. There is no reason for a nuclear reactor to cost more than 10 billion US.

Having seem children play I think many in would be quite comfortable killing a pig and draining it's blood if they could. You see children chasing pigeons - and I don't think it's just to hug them if they catch one.

I say this without commenting in favor of either side of this debate which I am undecided on and reading with interest.

But I think it's important not to shy away from the reality that cruelty and the desire to kill are very much a part of human nature from the beginning. And that applies no matter where or how we are brought up.

I don't think there's any need to arrest anyone as a show of strength. I don't feel the threat of an actual American invasion and I like living in a free society that doesn't go around arresting people for political show. Most of us are offended by Kevin being a self appointed negotiator on behalf of Canada but it's not like government is bound by anything he says so if he wants to talk in private with Trump as a private citizen so be it.

Canada has a parliamentary system where the leader of the party with the most votes becomes prime Minister. So Trudeau can step down as leader of his party while remaining Prime Minister.

In this case he intends to stay on until his party selects a new Prime Minister

This was definitely expected, people within and outside of the party have been calling for Trudeau to resign for a while and that chorus has been getting louder and picking up more prominent figures.

I suppose standard procedure in a Westminster parliament is to have a non confidence vote and an election - which is what the opposition parties said would happen when Parliament sits again. Poroguing parliament and having a leadership race is probably a way to try and avoid that or at least go into the election with a less unpopular leader.

Proguing parliament is probably the best thing for the liberal party to avoid an election with an unpopular leader. But I don't think it's good for Canada as it states down Trump's tariffs

What was a bit disappointing to me is the author decided to gloss over the parts like getting fresh water from a well and having it purified at the temple.

That's the parts I wanted more details on - it makes it interesting and more like a glance at a foreign and different culture.