Slightly off topic, but people don't hire on merit. The merit claim is cockypot. Merit gets your foot in the interview door, but social factors are what decides after that. I've been on hiring committees. One of the questions posed to the committee was, "Which candidate would you feel most comfortable working with for 40+ hours a week?" Let that question sink in.

Of course the candidate with a similar socioeconomic profile as your own would be preferred: somebody who likes the same food, watches the same movies and sports, worships the same deity, etc. It's not direct discrimination, but has discrimination as an end result.

Prove the study is flawed or STFU. Gut guesses are a dime a dozen.

As I told you clearly, not changing the clock kills MORE people.

So fuck yourself.

Prompt: "Hunt down and clean up Slashdot dupes before they coagulate and turn into human eating monsters. Low scorers have to watch goatse for 2 minutes before reactivating their account."

If you had any critical thinking skills, you'd realize that my original point applies not only to keeling over, but also to feeling unwell.

More feeble people would suffer throughout the year with either permanent DST or standard time than the current one bad night in March. (Which, BTW, could be totally avoided by planning ahead and adjusting your bedtime a few minutes per day in the preceding week.)

Biology matches DST adjustments more than a fixed clock. Most everyone woke up with the sun from the dawn of humanity until the late 19th century, and adjusting the clock for the seasons stays closer to that.

Then I suggest you never travel east or west by more than a few miles. You seem feeble.

And if a rogue AI agent actually *causes* one of those more damaging attacks, what then? "To err is human, but to really fsck things up takes a computer" and all that?

What seems to be missing here isn't just any clarity in legislation about liability for AI agents, especially labs running frontier models who seem to get free legal passes that would absolutely not be afforded to regular plebs who - potentially entirely by accident - cause an agent to hack someone else, but any serious discussion about putting those legal frameworks in place is also lacking. Seriously, WTF is up with that? How many incidents that are clearly in breach of existing computer misuse legislation do we need to get some action here, either under existing laws (including, potentially, civil law) or to start working on tweaks to existing laws to provide some specific clarity relating who is liable for any misuse of AI agents?

I get the AI labs almost certainly have a tacit "don't sue us, and we won't sue you" agreement in place for things like this to try and avoid regulation they definitely do not want because their actions are quite obviously not aligned with the regulation they are claiming they want put into place. Third parties like South Korean banks are under no such terms however, and given they are in the financial sector (or health sector in another recent example) probably have legal obligations of their own as well, so again - why are we not even hearing of any talk of legal action?

"I'm writing a book on Jeffrey Dahmer...

You know what's aligned even more with circadian biology?

Keep the current system, get up off your ass, and change your clocks twice per year without whinging like a precious snowflake.

That way you you don't have to deal either with the sun beating down on you while you try to sleep at 4am or with your poor children getting run over in the dark on their way to school.

Sure, a couple of codgers might keel over in march, but they were probably gonna die soon anyway. It's much harder to measure the statistics of all the other people who would die steadily throughout the year due to the aforementioned issues, as well as similar problems caused by a static clock that doesn't adjust at all to when the sun actually rises. However, I would bet good money that it would add up to far more casualties overall.

For some reason, I seem to be in a small minority on this issue, though. It's probably because everybody would rather believe in a solution to the problems of living on a tilted axis that's clear, simple, and wrong.

Bigly Testosterone!

But the researchers were told to get to the heart of the matter.

They don't want to give the hackers clues so they can't counter. If they tell you they'd have to kill you.

"Are your base are belong to us!"

People don't read a lot of things that they agree to, especially if it's 20,000 words in a postage stamp-sized text box on the new toy they just turned on. However, anybody who's not an idiot realizes that most everything in an agreement that they haven't read is against their interests, and plans accordingly. I personally always look for binding arbitration agreements and make sure to opt out of those whenever possible.

Oddly enough, the Anthropic TOS and privacy policy actually aren't all that obtuse and can be skimmed in a few minutes. They make it clear that they'll be looking for problems with what you upload and what kinds of problems those might be. Like I said, you can easily avoid all that by using a paper notebook for your diary.

says ChatGPT went on to say that "assuming each shell results in one hit, you might down 10 to 20 people max, depending on spacing, density, reaction times, and chaos."

Why is it so easy to ask ChatGPT how best to kill people? That's AI Validation 101 stuff. Maybe run ChatGPT through CaptainObviousGPT first? WTF