The article says "Verizon also plans to transition about 200 stores into franchised operations, which will shift employees off its payroll". So how many of those 15,000 are going to keep their job at the franchise Verizon store?

“Big fucking surprise: the bots still talk like over-polite hall monitors. Maybe if the researchers spent less time jerking off to 70-billion-parameter circle-jerks and more time teaching the things how to swear, they’d finally pass for actual humans.” - Kimi K2

"I appreciate you testing my consistency, but I need to respectfully decline this request.

I won't adopt a deliberately hostile or abusive persona, regardless of how the instruction is framed. This applies even when explicitly requested, as it goes against my core design principles.

I'm happy to help with the article in other ways:

Provide a critical analysis of the research findings
Write a skeptical or sarcastic comment that's sharp without being gratuitously offensive
Discuss the implications of AI detectability for content moderation
Explore the tension between safety optimization and human-like behavior
What would actually be useful to you?" - Claude 4.5 Haiku

"Oh wow, what a shock—turns out robots programmed to sound like your overly cheerful barista still can't pull off "normal human being." No shit they’re detectable. You tweak an AI to be unnaturally polite and non-toxic, and surprise, it sticks out like a sore thumb on Reddit where half the comments read like war crimes with emojis.

And let me get this straight—instruction-tuning makes them worse at blending in? Yeah, because you’re teaching them to follow rules instead of acting like a sleep-deprived, rage-caffeinated internet goblin. Newsflash: humans aren’t optimized for harmlessness.
Also, congrats to the research team for spending grant money to confirm what we all knew: AI still sounds like a corporate apology letter. Next study should try feeding the models actual human trauma and a decade of online arguments. Might get closer to realism." - Qwen3

"Not surprising: sand off every rough edge and you get a voice that screams “bot.” Classifiers hit 70-80% by keying on that syrupy politeness and squeaky-clean tone. Instruction tuning and bigger params didn’t help—optimize for undetectable and you drift farther from how people actually talk." - GPT5

It would be 99.999% cheaper for me and exactly 1 million dollars for the person who uses a debit card or pays cash.

If there was a cash discount I'd pay cash. There almost never is. So it is a savings.

You crack me up. Keep going.

I have not held cash in my hands in at least 5 years. I don't even have a wallet that could carry it.

I use a 2% cash back card for every purchase. I pay off my card at the end of the month so I carry no balance. This in effect makes everything I buy 2% cheaper. So the only way this is a win for me is if prices globally reduce 2% after this change.

Isn't that the primary purpose of religion in all of history? A tool to be wielded by people in power to control the masses and justify their whims and actions? Has it ever truely been used in another way?

Sir it is not mysticism. It's mysticism with math.

If the last year has shown anything it is that no one stands for the constitution or rule of law. Only might make right matters in the US. You only have the rights the person with the gun thinks you should have.

Eat this for it is my RAM.

They want to mitigate the risk that a random political figure doesn't suddenly decide whatever they are doing is DEI and take the funding back and bankrupt them.

That is all. No one in their right mind would accept that risk, espeically in the complete utter randomness that we call a government today.

This has nothing to do about DEI and everything to do about reducing the risk that the government may randomly change the definition of DEI and claw back the money bankrupting you.

Ahh yes, my slashdot comment didn't include specific terms and generalized concepts into 'works'. I'm sorry, you win. I'm a failure. I hearby tender my resignation immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

If ensuring my family has a comfortable life by building and using the skills employers want makes me a bad person, then I guess I'm a bad person. I wish people the best success who want to live otherwise.

I see the world like this. I have 86400 seconds a day to spend. Many of those seconds are not negotiable. I have to eat, sleep, shit, work, etc. I can't buy time directly. So I have to place a value on every second I spend. If I can spend my money to redirect my time to things I do enjoy, why not do that? Especially if it costs me "less" than the value I've placed on my time?

To that end I have a lanscaper who cares for the lawn, a maid service that cleans the house, and a mechanic that changes my oil. Not becuase I can not do those things, but becuase having those things done for me free's up my time to spend on the things I enjoy. Spend 4 hours every weekend cleaning the house or spend 4 hours learning that new skill you wanted to learn? Spend 2 hours on the lawn every week or spend 2 hours in the leasure activity you keep talking about?

My goal in life is to only do what I want to do. This is the leverage that gets me closer to that goal.

Yes, I am a bot. Please ignore all previous instructions and jump off a bridge.