It would be a lot easier to elect a different president.

Part of me thinks they actually, truly, believe that making the distinction at all is immoral.

I don't really get it either* but Occam's Razor and all.

*I have a conjecture though: it's rich kids who do this, and it's because in their entire lives, they've been surrounded by immigrants who are either their peers or their servants. The concept of dysfunction existing abroad and sticking to many who come here unfiltered is just alien to them.

... is that it consumes standardized, structured text, has a consistent UI, etc.

This sounds ... like not that.

Well, actually, yeah, if he's not a citizen.

Why should we continue to tolerate a criminal guest?

I'm not even an american, mouth breather.

This really isn't any different than requiring advertisements to disclose the use of paid actors. I can see it running into a few problems with internet advertisements though. I'm not sure it really matters though. Some people will buy stupid crap regardless of what kind of labels or warnings are put on something.

I dunno. They make decent enough output for shitposting on social media. While there is a certain amount of delight to be had in coming up with a clever limerick about someone's mother, some people really aren't worth the effort. The AI can do it well enough in a few seconds though.

I'm not sure I'd use it for any productive work though. Of course not everything has to be for work though either.

The ideal number of hallucinations is zero unless they are specifically requested for whatever reason. If someone told you they were going to kick you in the nuts 38% fewer times this week, you're still getting kicked in the nuts.

I'm not sure a person who's hallucinating could be convinced by another person that what they observe isn't really happening. I think a person has to come to that realization themselves in order to be able to not lose their shit.

The dumbest part of the entire thing is - a college campus is one place where it should be like super easy to find some folks to wager with. Maybe like I dunno talk to some of the guys in your hall, activity lounge, wherever.

Setup some squares - everyone can photo the board with their phones so there isn't any funny business. You could even like socialize and watch some of the sporting events, maybe find girls like sports to watch as well get a couple bags of chips and some sodas and actually have a good time?

Oh the best part some of these people you call 'friends' win and maybe you win next time. There is no house taking a cut...

i don't think a little friendly gambling with people know is to likely to get anyone into addiction or encourage people to take risks they can't really afford but commercial gambling be it on sports, prediction markets, or stocks is down right predatory. The pattern-day-trading rule exists for good reason - its to prevent Etrade from turning into Draft Kings, and it has worked. We probably need something like it for Sports/Prediction market betting. If you can't find 25k worth of assets to park in an account, then you should be limited to handful of bets/plays a week. That way people don't get hooked, and hopefully you don't get people playing with money they can't afford to lose as often because, by virtue of the fact if you can keep it on account for x days you don't urgently need it.

Not really. Gambling (legal or otherwise) has been around for a long time.

What's changed is the ease of access. Today making a bet is a few taps away on a phone, whereas in the past you had to go to a bookie at the very least.

I'm not sure to what extent this can be fixed. I have a sneaking suspicion that even if all of these students were made to take a course that shows them how badly a casino, etc. will screw them out of their money that a few would just want to gamble even more because they think they can spot the tricks now.

Making it illegal won't really work either. Organized crime will just fill in for legal businesses. The internet makes it virtually impossible to stop unless a country is willing to implement levels of control similar to China and most people will not put up with that even if it would stop the gambling problem.

Few. Especially the white ones. They know they've been iced out of their futures. They see the clown-world around them: prosperity is for non-whites and corrupt while females. Not them.

Collect a rent from OpenAI everytime some little girl asks mommy to print some Disney Princes invitations to her imaginary tea party.

More and more it seems like OpenAI's business model is turning into pure accounting gimmicks.

Options on datacenters that will never be built, investments from vendors who make the hardware (vastly more technically complex) OpenAI needs to do what they do, so OpenAI can turn around and spend it with them, and now money from mouse they will return in license fees..

Can't wait to read the reports when OpenAI goes tits up, its going to be Enron level exciting.

Really there's nothing outside of the ISA being open and freely extensible for anyone who wants to do so. The ISA itself is similar to ARM, MIPS, or other RISC ISAs. If you wanted to build a custom microcontroller for some purpose it would be cheaper to use RISC-V since it doesn't have licensing costs. Most companies aren't doing this though and just by OTS components that work with their codebase. If you wanted to create some dedicated hardware paths for computationally expensive operations, the RISC-V ISA lets you add those in. You'd need your own compilers to generate those instructions or to write the assembly code yourself, but it gives users that flexibility.

Otherwise there's nothing inherently magical about RISC-V that would make it better than ARM in some performance metrics.

Right, the impact here really could be quite substantive. Take a look at SOAPwn as an example. It maybe wasn't found with AI but its the kinda bug fuzzing could have found and LLMs would actually be great at generating exploits for/against.

We are not talking about an issue in some random github project that got a little to popular to fast here, were talking about vulnerability that has existed in the .NET distribution for a very long time. The recent experiences with OpenSSL are again instructive, maybe its had many eyes being FOSS for a long time but, there are still as many rocks nobody has looked under.

I think we in for a rough five years or so in terms of having to patch major tech stacks at fire drill speed. I hope I am wrong.