In general, the principle problem with LLMs is that they're completely unreliable, due to the basic design. But in cases where they''re just saying "look at this, maybe this is a problem", reliability is not required because if it makes no sense, someone can just say "no". The problem comes when people begin to trust them, despite them being completely untrustworthy. Applications where trust is not required are fine.

I'm too wily to buy something like that. But if I did buy one of those things, and an advertisement appeared on it, my reaction would be "how dare you put advertisements on my fridge which I paid money for! I'm not buying anything from your company now unless there's absolutely no alternative!"

Advertising-supported free services? Fair enough, I understand the bargain there. Showing advertisements on something that's paid for? You are now my enemy.

If you see no threat from quantum computers, then remaining completely classical for simplicity and performance is indeed the consequent choice. But whether there's a threat from them is a very hard question to evaluate since predicting technological development is very difficult, so one shouldn't jump to suspicion simply from there being people making the opposite judgement.

They're fine against conventional attacks, I don't know where you're getting that idea from. It's true that one finalist turned out to have a catastrophic flaw, that doesn't mean they're generally worthless. What it actually means is that we have less confidence in their primitives than we do in conventional primitives, since they haven't been around for nearly as long. Whether you think the increased risk of a break being found is more or less than the risk of someone attacking your conventional algorithms with a quantum computer is a judgement call.

However, you don't have to make this judgement call. You can use hybrid algorithms - sign/encrypt with both conventional and quantum-resistant algorithms. Then in order to break your crypto, an adversary needs both a good quantum computer and a PQ algorithm break.Or for signing, you can use SLH-DSA, for which the only primitive is well-tested hashes, providing its slowness and large signatures don't make it impractical for you.

I note that you can only enter an exact date into this system. As well as allowing users to be ambiguous, (for instance, if you want to broadcast being over 18 only,) some people don't know their exact birth date and would need a range.

How about we present the message: "it is fraud to advertise a device as suitable for use on the internet unless you are committing to fixing any critical security flaws found on it for the lifetime of that device".

To get the intended effect, you need to go into Mission to the Unknown expecting the Doctor to turn up at some point, watch The Myth Makers having no idea what that was about, and finish up watching The Massacre wondering if the whole thing is coming to an end. Over the course of 20 weeks, naturally. It's a period when the show deliberately abandons having the individually named episodes neatly arranged into different stories.

Doctor Who in particular, has not only generally been progressive, but sometimes quite radical. Take one of my favourite 60s stories for example, The War Games, which starts by looking like it's set in WWI before revealing a larger sci-fi setup, turns the commanders of both sides of a number of wars into aliens with more in common with each other than the soldiers they command, directing the war by playing board games with each other, to which the solution is for all soldiers everywhere to unite with each other in collective mutiny against their commanders. Rather than having a military command structure with captain as protagonist, it has a hero who hates guns and typically defeats enemies representing power by being more clever than them and refusing to take them seriously.

If you think the US Democrat party is left, let alone far-left, you need to try talking to an actual leftist at some point in your life. The left want to do things like abolish capital. The last time the Democrats were in power, they didn't even shut the concentration camps.

Make it explicit that anything purchased by a consumer must not refuse to work as advertised under any circumstances unless prominently advertised at the time of purchase or obvious from the basic nature of the product, enforced by the criminal justice system with charges such as fraud and criminal damage. "I refuse to work unless you agree to this EULA", "I refuse to work unless you connect to the internet", "I refuse to work unless you make an account," "I refuse to do this function any more after this software update" should all be criminal without the purchase contract clearly including them.

Anything said when touring a place to rent can affect the contract which results, since making promises before signing a contract commits you to those promises. So I hope they're ready for the point where they discover that their LLM committed them to something stupid because of LLMs saying things randomly. Or to whatever the renter wants, because we don't know how to defend LLMs against a sufficiently clever person they're interacting with getting them to say whatever that person wants.

This sort of thing is already illegal (at least in the UK, and I'm sure many other countries,) existing laws just aren't being enforced. If you purport to "sell" something but it will actually stop working at some point when you do something of your own due to how you've programmed it, then that's not suitable for the purpose it's advertised for, you're breaking the clause in the Sale of Goods act about the buyer enjoying quiet possession of the goods, and it's a deliberate implied false representation, so that's fraud.

If you have good intentions, you simply don't unleash a bot on the internet with no idea of what it might do. That has the "allow society to take all the risk" intention, which is not a good one.

Run quickly on some extremely resource-constrained system perhaps?

Don't confuse someone speaking about an area completely outside of their field of expertise with someone speaking about their field of expertise.