Well, yeah. I thought it was pretty well known that, like the "four food groups" before it, the food pyramid came from the USDA. The USDA does not serve the same function as the department of Health and Human services. The food pyramid was developed to promote the interests of MidWestern farmers, not health. That aligns with the mission of the USDA. My understanding is that most doctors, and especially nutritionists, have never paid attention to the food pyramid.

What part of "...you're still entirely missing the point for some weird tangent that has nothing to do with what I was saying." don't you understand. I have not once argued that the statistically better system would typically be the best choice. What I said was that, if that statistically better system still fails in catastrophic ways randomly, even though it is better in the average case, that is something that needs to be addressed. It's not that nuanced or hard to grasp is it?

Consider a parallel example that doesn't involve AI at all. Let's say you have a tricky surgery coming up. You will die without out. The mean mortality rate for most surgeons on the procedure is 50%. However, your doctor tells you that you are lucky. The surgeon they have lined up for your procedure has done it hundreds of times with a mortality rate of only 5%. That is fantastic you tell your doctor. They reply that yes, it is fantastic, however there is one small thing. Every now and then, the surgeon has some sort of psychotic break during surgery and murders the patient. Sometimes they saw off their head, sometimes they sever their carotid or aorta, sometimes they inject them with a fatal dose of opioids, etc. However, despite that, their statistical performance is terrific. Now, would you just shrug and say that's fine, or would you wonder if, maybe, just maybe, they should find out what is going on there and stop the doctor from murdering patients?

Which is why some people are skilled surgeons, masters with a scalpel, and others just should not be trusted with anything sharp. I would go over my mean vs. median argument again, but it should be obvious. It should be quite clear that something can be better than the mean, but not better than the median, or, in fact, better than the mean, but still not better than the upper end of the spectrum.

"they had to - otherwise, nothing would be done"

I saw the words "Toilet" and "End-To-End Encrypted" and knew that the jokes would write themselves.

To be fair: I don't think it is unreasonable to show a notification to make drivers aware of this offer. But it most certainly should not appear when driving, or get in the way. I would be okay with it if the screen showed a simple message: "Hey, you can use SiriusXM for 2 weeks, on us", when starting the car, and only once.

Other than that I would want an anti-enshittification law: the number and timing of ads on owned equipment and any online servces required to enjoy the equipment, and the available functions on that equipment or associated services, shall not significantly change after the service or equipment is purchased, unless a full refund is offered.

OF COURSE the Chinese have been copying work from other countries, do you think they should have to go back and reinvent the airfoil if they want to build airplanes? Know who else does it? England. France. Myanmar. Mexico. Israel, Kenya, and every other frelling country on the planet. Industrial spying has been a thing every since industry was invented in the Stone Age, potters from India copied the recipe for improved pottery from kilns in Iraq and flint knappers from France copied flaking techniques from Croatia. What you were claiming is that China can only copy technology from others, which is incredibly ignorant and fairly racist especially since much of our modern Western civilization is based on technology copied FROM CHINA.

Really? I was unaware that Honda had 50 mph electric motorcycles 70 years ago. The things you learn on SlashDot...

So you think that 1/5 of the world's population, with one of the best education systems on the planet, with 6 of the top 10 research institutes anywhere, can only copy other people's work? Wow, that's remarkably stupid, even for you.

So you feel confident declaring you know all about it, when you don't even know that it's Communist Party of China (CPC).

Wow, the stupid is strong in this one.

The point was not about them being the same technology. The point was about them both being technologies that do a better job than a human in general, but may do a catastrophically worse job than a human in specific situations.

Also, you don't seem to understand that current gen AI is algorithmic. The "self-learning neural networks" are algorithms that will produce the same output from the same inputs. Either you have not actually studied computer science, or you did not understand some of it.

While there are circumstances where you can use them without actually quoting something, there are certainly situations where the expectation is that you are actually quoting something. For example when you are claiming some specific regulation or ethical rule and then you put something in quotes appearing to be a quote of the rule or, for another example, the sentence I have copied above where you appear to be quoting me, but just made the sentence up. In any case, whether or not it's a quote, it's still generally expected that you'll give a citation.

Sorry, but you're basically babbling like an idiot and you're still entirely missing the point for some weird tangent that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I mean yeah, it's unfair to blame him for more than about a quarter of it.

"... that it stop recommending your watched videos."

I get surprised by the number of recently watched vids it displays (once or twice a session or so). But whatever, it doesn't affect my flow.

And actually I like when an old favorite occasionally scrolls across. I expect in thirty years all the old 'tubers will be watching favorite AI curated videos of their youth, and enjoying it "because it's not like the crap the new generation is putting out".