It wouldn't be news if you looked at their terms of service -- which you should. The ToS explicitly say they use a combination of automated systems, human review, and reports to identify and investigate violations of their usage terms, including violence, abuse, fraud, impersonation, disinformation, foreign influence campaigns , abusive sexual content, and academic dishonesty. This includes "anonymous" sessions that are saved for a minimum of 30 days. You have no expectation of privacy from the provider's compliance teams.

This is *absolutely* standard among the major online players. So why not use a local AI workstation with a couple of big-ass GPU cards in it to run the campaign? That's what they *should* have done. But the major online players like ChatGPT and Claude are much better at realistic content generation than the widely available local models you can run.

What they should have done is design and run the compaign on a local AI workstation, and used the local workstation to generate prompts they could feed into burner accounts on public services like ChatGPT and Claude. But they got lazy and ran the *whole* operation in ChatGPT, right in plain fiew of the OpenAI compliance teams the ToS they evidently didn't read would have told them were there. They even did *performance reviews* in the same account.

Remember folks, these "spooks" are just mid-level paper-pushers in an opaque communist bureacuracy. You can never discount inertia in such an environment. Because this was something new, they might even have had trouble getting the purchase of some high end GPUs approved.

It's already there for iOS. On iOS: Settings->->Personal information then Date of birth and Age Range for Apps.

For family, it's Settings->Family->->Apple Account->'Age range for apps'

I don't hate Trump. I pity him. No matter how much shit he slaps his name on, it won't fill the hole is daddy left in him. But people that damaged shouldn't be let anywhere near power.

Personally, I see Trump as a symptom, no much cause.

In the same sense Bush II was the result of Clinton, and Obama was the result of Bush II, Trump I was the normal backlash against Obama's overreach. Think about what it means that Trump - a pretty poor president the FIRST time - was selected a SECOND time by a majority of Americans?
Biden's admin was seen as so grossly partisan, so sclerotic that every single demographic except white women swung rightward.

(Some of us might suggest that the vote was ultimately cultural, not political; an instinctive revulsion at the Left's very Gramsci-an post-covid victorylap/overreach into even redefining reality - what is a woman, indeed?)

The result is militant ossification on the left in turn. The centrists have no voice. I'm not sure there are many actual centrists left.

Corporate media is no longer an oppositional 4th estate; they've picked a side. (They're oppositional NOW because their side is out of power. That's contextual not fundamental.) I *much* prefer a media that tears apart everything a president does than the craven lickspittles running cover for the wealthy and powerful.

I saw an anti-ICE post the other day "Eisenhower deported 1.3 million illegal immigrants with only 750 agents"
Yes that's because in 1950, the statement "Illegals should be deported" would rank up there with "The sun rises in the East" and "Water is wet" as so obvious NOBODY would have disagreed.

Yet - many of the tactics Trump's floating today about countering the Supremes' ruling against his tariff were first employed by Mr Obama. His administration had one of the lowest Supreme Court win rates for a modern presidency (~50%) - the lowest since Zachary Taylor with a notably high number of 9-0 losses, totaling nearly 50 over his two terms.

Neoliberalism and liberalism are two totally different things.

(taps foot)

(taps foot)

(taps foot)

Me? I'm just standing around waiting for all the scolds who INSISTED nobody could ever call places shithole countries to come back out of the woodwork.

(Yeah, I guess I'll be waiting a while)

Well, er: yeah she hires clerks, not AI?

https://insider-gaming.com/xbo...

"....created her Xbox account just one month ago, and since then, has racked up more than 10,000 Gamerscore across a variety of games.

The problem is, the pseudo-detectives analysing Sharmaâ(TM)s profile have uncovered some strange behaviour, such as hitting 100% in Firewatch and Ball x Pit, the latter of which she played 43 hours in a single week. She has also unlocked rare achievements in Minecraft and has bounced between ârandom gamesâ(TM) at what must be an extremely busy time for her..."

So the root cause is bad/missing input sanitation? Or is the defect the inability of the vendor to maintain the code to current standards and needs?

Ai will just shine the light on the class of workers who have make-work just that exist solely to push them to vote harder.

When we can let markets replace them, itâ(TM)ll be a tragedy for a few generations and then it will be forgotten.

Well, no. It's true you can't buy books for the purposes of scanning them *and then making them available online* (Hachette v. Internet Archive). Scanning them for AI training is not settled law in every Federal District, although in at least one that has been ruled transformative and therefore allowable (Bartz v Anthropic, Northern District of California).

We call it Climate Ouroboros.

The models are tuned quite literally to create today's weather from yesterday's inputs.

This is how they calibrate them.

And then the 'climate scientists' turn around, run today's weather through them and - voila! - warming!
"Proved" by models.

If these models didn't show warming, you would throw them out as broken models and look for another.

The early IPCC reports didn't even regard water vapor and clouds as - essentially - too complicated to model.

This paper from 2024: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418...
"...Nikolov and Zeller conclude that the observed decrease of planetary albedo, together with variations of solar output or TSI (total solar irradiance), account for 100% of the global warming trend as well as 83% of the interannual variability in global surface air temperature....Shaviv found that total solar forcing of the earthâ(TM)s climate, which includes indirect effects, is 5 to 7 times larger than that associated with direct solar warming. Such a large amplification factor would imply that the climate is much more sensitive to the sun than to CO2"

Anthropic famously bought a lot of copyrighted books and scanned them to ingest into its model training corpus. Arguably they aren't violating copyright because what they are doing is *transformative* -- turning words into a statistical map of word associations.

But what China is doing by inferring the structure of that map doesn't touch on *any* kind of intellectual property of Anthropics. Sure, the map is a trade secret, but they've exposed that trade secret through their public interface. It's not human created so it's not copyrightable. Even if that map were patentable, which it probably isn't, it's not patented.

The worst you can say is that China is violating the service's terms of service, which may have no legal force there.

It's absolutely a DRAIN on the economy, as expected?

As a lifelong cyclist, I agree in principle. The problem is over the last seventy-five years we have rearchitected the very geographic fabric of society to make *solving* our transportation problems with bike and public transit impossible.

Before WW2, Dad would leave the apartment and walk or take a trolley to work (usually in the same city neighborhood) while Ma "kept house" -- managed cooking, clearning, childcare, and the family's community and social engagement. In the 1950s and 60s, instead of an apartment, it'd be a suburban house. Ma would drop Pa off at the kiss and ride.

Today Mom and Dad both have jobs they have to get to, usually in *different* suburban employment areas; they can locate to make the commute easy for one, but they keep changing jobs every couple of years while their long-term wealth is being put into a geographically fixed asset: their house. They are financially anchored to their house as their jobs move around the region.

Car-dependency is baked into the very fabric of society, in a way you can't fix with transportation policy or projects--not without decades of projects. But we have reached the limits of the car-dependency model; we can't fix traffic by adding marginal car capacity as has been repeatedly demonstrated by freeway projects that fail to fix traffic because we're in an equillibrium between commute times and job selection.

Transit and bike infrastructure won't fix this, but they *can* make marginal improvements in the traffic situation by taking cars off the road for the minority of people who can use these alternatives at this particular point in their lives. I think e-bikes are going to be key. I personally wouldn't consider a ten mile commute by bike on roads shared with cars a barrier to commuting by bike, but most people wouldn't attempt it. E-bikes on bike infrastructure can make a ten mile commute practical for *normal* people, and take a significant number of cars off congested roads. Public transit could help, but again in a marginal, opportunistic way. In Europe or the US Northeast where car-dependency was overlaid on existing dense urban fabrics, there's a lot of opportunity for major transit projects. But for American cities in the West which have *no* center of mass to build around, solving car-dependency is likely a Moon-shot level project.

Well, that's one hypothesis. However since they saw a significant difference in the population where the social media apps were removed, then if your hypothesis is true, the data would suggest that delivering the service as a native app rather than a web app must have some harmful effect in itself. An alternative hypothesis is that their application usage patterns changed when the apps were removed.

It's not altogether far fetched that web-delivered apps have a different psychological effect than native smartphone apps, because native smartphone apps have greater access to the system for tracking and notifications. Native apps also offer different features than their web versions. This is why I use Facebook via a browser, because the Facebook native app is insufferably intrusive, constantly trying to get your attention. It means, however, I can't use Facebook's chat function.