Chat with a normal person:

Me: "Zuck has never been tied to any party, he only supported the Democrats when..."

Normal person: "Are you saying people shouldn't change parties?"

Me: "No, I'm saying OP was wrong about Zuck being a Democrat"

Normal person: "Oh, sorry, misunderstood. Sorry to bother you"

--

Chat with you:

Me: "Zuck has never been tied to any party, he only supported the Democrats when..."

You: Some word salad about ships that ends insulting me and suggesting that my vote is for party not principle.

Me: "That's not what I said at all and does not represent my beliefs"

You: General shit flinging and increasingly bizarre and hysterical lies

Me: "if you can't read, please don't reply to my posts. You're wasting my time and everyone else's."

You: More shit flinging and lies

--

Why are you wasting everyone's time here?

Get of Slashdot, turn off the computer, start talking to real people, and when you badly misunderstand what someone said, don't accuse them of "gaslighting" when they explain your interpretation is bullshit.

You are an intensely stupid person. GFYS.

I remember when Trump was shot a few years ago. Seems people have always shot at Presidents. Which is why I implore you not to hold me liable for my brand new book "How to shoot the President: Ten tips for assassinating an ass! The Secret Service doesn't want you to read #9!" Available at all booksellers now, buy before midnight today and we'll give you a FREE $500 off coupon for an AR-15!

(To save the SS a trip, no, this is not real, it's a joke to make a point, and while I'm not a fan of the jerk I don't want people shooting him either.)

> Section 230 says that Slashdot can't be held liable if a user posts a "how to coordinate a school shooting" guide in the comments section, as it's provided by "another" information content provider. If a Slashdot editor posted such a guide to the front page, they've provided that content themselves, and are no longer protected.

I agree with your analysis and just wanted to add:

Section 230 doesn't mean there's no liability, only that none of it befalls the owners of the Internet infrastructure used to host the comment. So if, for example, some random Slashdot poster posted a "How to coordinate a school shooting" guide, Slashdot wouldn't be held liable, but the poster would be. Slashdot might be ordered by a court to turn over the poster's details, but that's as far as it goes for /., while the poster might be held liable depending on exactly what they posted.

(This doesn't contradict anything you just said, but is a missing piece people often miss when discussing the validity of S.230, which in general is a good rule despite the recent skepticism here.)

I enjoyed his books very much, but no he was not on point. He claimed we'd have the means to create superhuman intelligence before now, and you have just admitted that nobody would claim that has been achieved, 3 years after he claimed it could happen, and despite billions being spent to attempt it. So no, that was just another religious opinion unsupported by science, and you showed here that you have enough information to know that yet still somehow didn't get it.

That is also magical thinking, but no more so than the idea that by throwing circuits with complexity similar to that which we have discovered in the human brain so far, we will inevitably create consciousness. That is not just wishful thinking, it's clueless. We keep finding more complexity in the brain, so it's still a moving target which is enough to defeat such an argument on its own, and transistors are not neurons which is also enough to prove it's a folly.

Section 230 is about user generated content. You aren't liable for what someone else posts to your website. It has nothing to do with your program outputting algorithmicly generated text. To the best of my knowledge, there is no shield law like S.230 or the laws absolving firearm manufacturers of liability that applies to text generated by an LLM.

Like it or not, what your product does is more important than whether it was designed deliberately to do that. If your product actually injures or kills people, you will be generally found liable. This has been the case for over a century. It's why every piece of consumer electronics has a "UL" sticker on it, because the insurers want to minimize the risks before offering liability insurance.

Slashdot Lawyers like to pretend that every evil thing that happens is the result of one person and that only one person can have liability. But that's not the case, in most cases, for something horrific to occur, multiple entities fail, and are held liable to different degrees. It's not a question of whether OpenAI is liable for anything here under normal circumstances, it's whether they can point at some specific law that shields them (like an equivalent of S.230), and if not, to what degree they are held at fault.

Yeah, this isn't it, unless they're claiming that Google is just as dumb as the author is, which is entirely possible. Comments like "Businesses are just starting to realize that AI coding tools can enable anyone to build products by prompting a chatbot" (no, businesses thought that 2-3 years ago, they're just starting to realize that's bullshit and nothing substantial that will need maintenance can be done that way) makes me think the author is just a genAI shill.

My God, you really have no understanding of the English language, do you?

Again, if you can't read, please don't reply to my posts. You're wasting my time and everyone else's. My advice right now though would be to leave Slashdot and possibly the Internet and never come back, as it's clear you don't understand anything you're reading.

Fucking dumbasses like you who want to have a fight about something nobody has said are part of what makes Slashdot a hellhole these days. That, and all the open fascists.

Literally everything you just said has no basis in anything I said.

Again, if you can't read, please don't reply to my posts. You're wasting my time and everyone else's.

Catalysts make a bigger difference to air quality than the gasoline blend because unburned hydrocarbons are the most harmful automotive emission in every category, whether you mean health impact, GWP, or even just how offensive the air becomes to breathe, and catalysts are there specifically to cause them to burn.

You don't care about the rule of law? You do know that anarchy leads naturally to feudalism, right? There's no relief there, just the cycle repeating.

This sounds like a pretty normal number but...

Humans are not fungible, except superficially.

While this is true, they will just shut most of the added power capacity down because it's now not profitable enough to operate, and it's going to be more of AI's toxic legacy.

Most of the suddenly discounted GPUs are going to be from Nvidia, which is irritating because their Linux drivers suck :)

That seems true if you just ignore all the people it doesn't work for, and all of the externalities that come from it. Which is of course exactly how those studies work. They are sufficient to fool the fools, which is all they need to do.

The whole point of AI is for it to do work instead of us. Fantasizing about it creating new jobs for us to spend our lives doing instead of enjoying existing is really quite sad. We should be envisioning what we can spend our lives doing instead of slaving away for someone else's profit in hopes that we will be permitted to retire someday.