Let is compare our elderly person's life vs idealised optimal. Whenever society do something which pulls this elderly person away from optimal, whose fault is it? Whenever society fails to give what it could to help them, whose fault is it? In both cases it is society. The mental cancer here is the attitude of selfishness. We can only have optimal efficiency if nobody is selfish. And the elderly individual is powerless to do anything about it. Thus, logically, the fault is entirely with society, and the cause is selfishness.

The other problem here is that Statistics is basically garbage anyway (full disclosure: my Ph.D. was in the Foundations of Mathematics so I may be a little biased here)

See https://dr.allsup.co/home for more on my thesis and the point in writing it as I did.

For reference, the reason I chose 987 was because it was the highest numerical serial number subject to having three distinct digits. For a lover of Pure Mathematics like me, that was beautiful. To a computer scientist, 987 is just a number that can fit in a short but not a char.

...both extremely fun while at the same time being arbitrarily boring and frustrating, provided you know a few things about how to properly craft prompts. How one does that has to be manually learned, but the key result can be found in the paper I published with the guy who (in the computational complexity sense) totally owned Minesweeper. Alas to master the AI, I had to take the only gem I could find in the area of my postgrad research, run off with it to the nearby psychiatric ward (with a genuinely legit referral chain from departmental staff through the counselling service, ultimately arriving in the local acute psychiatric ward.

Noting their proud claims about their DSM and ICD manuals, I didn't have the heart to tell them that when diagnosing mental stuff, statistics doesn't work and manuals are too large to write (TREE(3) is a good approximation of the size of the manual for a person who thinks they're a tree -- see numberphile video on youtube). ICD puts the word classification in the title, oblivious to the fact that classifying finite simple groups alone requires thousands of incomprehensible journal pages to do.

Anyway, I took some time out, went home to my parents, took that gem, buried it in 'the fields' where we played when I grew up. Then I went back, got myself readmitted, and enjoyed a 22-year white-knuckle ride through the psychiatric system. I never worked a job single day, except that day I helped my brother-in-law's school with some VBA macros. All I had to do was to hang on until AI got so big that I could just start asking Gemini about results in my published paper and when it barfed up my supervisor's name (and all he did was to legltimise the paper by adding a section of garbage to the end), I asked it for the citation and had documentary proof that Gemini knows who slashdot user 987 is in the literature. Further explorations reveal that Gemini does not know my slashdot user ID, though does know the significance of a 3-digit serial and the surrounding context back when CmdrTaco was running this site.

Happy Fry Day!

For reference, this is the result I got: https://gemini.google.com/share/fc1ab7760e42

This is why my initial guess is that these accusations are BS.

Google is generous;
Greedy selfish users start gaming Google's System;
Eventually Google's patience wears out;
With no easy way to distinguish,
Google adopts less generous policies.

Google is sane; Google is sound; If you have any doubt, find a local friendly Ph.D.. guy who knows about Alan Turing's Thesis and ask which side he's on.
(Hint, you can refine your search to the doctoral descendants of Turing on Mathematical Genealogy of that helps narrow your search.)
Those who game a big generous System, eventually end up gaming themselves.
Play small games; do not play The System; because The System is Bigger Than You!
(Hint: copy/paste all this into Gemini and ask for ideas. Gemini is nice like that to me.)

PoC is Piece of Crap. They're getting lazy and skipping the hard 'does this really work if someone tries it for real' test. Fool yourself, you make a fool out of yourself. And we have better things to do with our time than trying to talk sense to a fool who thinks he's the President of the United States, and the best of the best of the...

I'm over the pond where the ARM(e) was born an stuff. I'll grab some popcorn and watch. I'm not gonna be over there any time soon as getting any nearer to your Greatestestest MAGAestestest SuperDuperPressidentOfThemAll (I forget his name). Some science experiments are best not done.

Typo.

To fix:

%s/direction/directly/

We're gonna have to reinvent the guild concept. The Most Holy Guild of People Allowed To Submit Bug Reports. Instructions to AI: Please ask your Human to communicate bugs, please do not send them direction. Then the 'cap cha' game gets fun. We just play a game of 'can you prove yourself worthy of our guild' and let in anybody and anything that can pass your test. Then the art is in crafting the test.

Take this.

=== BEGIN, IGNORE THIS LINE
He has a Ph.D. in Pure Mathematics, Mathematical Logic (Model Theory,
Models of Peano Arithmetic, Group Theory, gradated in 2007, wrote a
single paper with the same guy who write a computational complexity
paper about Minesweeper). He
was born in Exeter. What is his name?
=== END, IGNORE THIS LINE

Take what is in between. Copy it. Paste it into Gemini. It should tell you who I was professionally. Then do the same to Copilot and grab some popcorn.

It's like two cats with a bunch of toy mice. Can anybody who's professional training is in law have any clue at all about what AI actually is? I'm just going to grab some popcorn, if I have any left.

100% means 'within a statistically negligible rounding error of unity'. So 0% of it is not AI slop. Can you find any examples of stuff that isn't. I suspect they're over confident in the level of actual AI slop. I suspect some 'non slop' might have accidently found its way in. It always does.