Leaning into LLM's brain-smoothing process (please stop calling it AI, it's not intelligent) is just a final act of desperation by overpriced, outmoded forms of education. Hoping that the LLM monster eats higher education last if it plays along is a horrible idea.
 
Instead, they should be doubling down on teaching the socratic method, critical thinking and real curiosity - stuff that LLMs will never do. The schools that do this will thrive by swimming against this idiotic tide.

It's been, what, a week, and they got 6000 jets through maintenance during a very busy holiday travel season?

That speaks to fantastic logistics. There are anonymous folks out there who did a great job and deserve a ridiculously generous Christmas Bonus. :gallant bow:

Try and remember why we don’t let the actual crazies run the asylum for staters.

We can dictate a written test to receive license to drive a car, but we seem to overlook ANY similar control we could possibly require for using an LLM? Just how easy is it for a certified mental case to get a drivers license anyway?

Don't let them vote. Don’t let them buy porn. Don’t let them enter into contracts. Don’t let them own land. Don't let them own guns. But by all means don’t dare limit their access to mind-warping LLM influence only a CIA black site interrogator could love, because profit? Make it fucking make sense. Sometimes we DO actually need to think of the undeveloped minds we call children for a reason.

If you dare call yourself a concerned parent of a child you care about, I’d suggest you read this over and over again until it becomes crystal clear why children should be banned from social media.

Not one of those greedy cocksuckers gives a shit about their mental health. AI is clearly no exception.

We make drugs illegal for this kind of mind-altering harm. If you think social media isn’t a drug, I dare you to rip that teenagers Precious from their hands and describe the reaction to a substance abuse specialist.

It wasn’t a “maybe” concern when a dishonorably discharged cokehead son started working for a Ukrainian energy corporation. It was blatantly corruptly fucked. And a liberal media turned a blind eye, because The Big Guy.

Spare us the Russia Russia Marsha maybes. We’ve barely started unmasking President Autopens blatant corruption.

It was their idea, after all.

If they can't tie your account to your real identity somehow, then the whole thing is incredibly pointless.

We've already been over this with Germans getting pissed off at valve for "ignoring their laws" because valve refuses to store real identities of people on their servers, so they simply default to limiting Germans to only having access to games that the country determines acceptable to all ages. (Read: they're not ignoring any Doucheland laws, in fact they're fully compliant with them.) Then they say "oh but it's so easy, cigarette vending machines do it all the time!" (Yeah, apparently they still have those in Doucheland) without considering how that isn't going to work over the internet particularly well, not to mention it can totally be gamed.

>"we've got a new social norm. It's illegal for tech companies to give unsupervised access to social media. Have you been paying attention at all?"

1) It shouldn't be up to the "social media" companies.
2) They have no way of determining if someone is a minor other than to strip ALL people of their privacy.
3) That isn't a "social norm", it is just a law. Big difference.
4) And the "social norm" should be no unrestricted access to the Internet at all, not just so-called "social media." There are MILLIONS of other sites children should not interact with.
5) There is no good definition of "social media", so they are just listing some of the popular ones.

This doesn't solve all the problems, and in the process, it makes new ones that are just as bad- penalizing adults is one of them.

>"So you're saying the restrictions need to be stronger to capture some of that other 99%? Or were you planning on banning phones and computers themselves?"

We are talking about minors. They shouldn't have unsupervised access to unrestricted devices connected to the Internet. I am not saying we ban anything for adults. But children should not have access to things that are dangerous. And that isn't up to companies or government, but to parents and their agents. We need to set a new social norm that it is not OK to just give unrestricted devices to minors. Just like it is not OK to give them unrestricted access to knives, medications, alcohol, strangers, vehicles, junk food, etc. That should NOT involve "ID"'ing everyone for every web site.

Hold that thought on that last comment until you remember what they’re fighting to access. And then remember why we’re more needing to ban them from that content until the frontal cortex actually hardens a bit more with reality instead of delusion.

Status quo sure as shit ain’t making them smarter making the fucking Idiocracy sequel as a wildlife documentary.

>"Is almost universally not about the children. In this case it's about de-anonymizing the Internet to aid in mass surveillance."

Bingo.

Because the kids will just get their fix on one of the 99.99999999999% of the sites that are NOT being blocked to them.

The problem is that kids SHOULD NOT HAVE UNSUPERVISED ACCESS to devices that can go just anywhere on the Internet in the first place. Or call/message/txt/media to/from any stranger. The devices are the problems. Parents should be parents and give their children restricted devices. Instead, we try to force every human (which means all adults and children) to PROVE who they are before they access popular sites. It is a big business/government wet dream come true.

Not in Europe, at least. That was declared immoral about 15 years ago.

https://youtu.be/-bMzFDpfDwc&t...

It's all good though because they observe the traffic signals with the devotion of a monk.

I think this will turn out to be one giant lawsuit that, even if oracle wins, they'd still have already bet (and lost) the family farm. Blood from a rock.

You mean like an actual degree at an accredited university? In fact, I do have one, unlike you. The "auto-didact"ing I've only ever spoken about here was for one skill in particular, which has pushed my net worth into the seven digits. If that isn't validation, then feel free to tell me what makes you think you've done any better.

We do exactly this where I work (I'm part of the team who enforces that) and for exactly this reason. However in our case, until a few months ago, use of these tools was nearly completely banned with case-by-case exceptions for individual users, unlike Amazon. We only recently made one exception for just one AI tool where we have a particular arrangement that guarantees that nothing within our instance of it can be "learned" and regurgitated elsewhere, and anybody may use it without needing any policy exceptions. Nevertheless, we still drop a big interstitial on it that tells them that they're still forbidden from putting anything sensitive into it. We also don't allow e.g. "vibe coding".

Given that difference, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon has no such walled off approach. In this case, they're probably just dogfooding.