Please, find me an example of this fantasy.

Here you go.

For a slightly less gruesome story, this guy misrepresened himself for years, lying about his credentials.

I think the idea is identifying people most likely to succeeded and get them out. This makes slightly more sense for LLMs, if you're just talking about reading a lot of public data for people who have no right to privacy anyway due to the harm they caused others.

16% sounds pretty low, but it's probably reasonable. There are a lot of people in prison who can't be let out. I'm sorry, you stab someone, the chance of rehabilitation is very low. If they get 20 years, they need to stay in 20 years. Maybe they'll be too old to hurt anyone then, or the time will make them realize how shit they are. Most often a lot, they'll commit a violent crime again and then won't get out ever. I think of this tragic case of a woman who befriended her mom's killer and was then murdered by him after she helped him get parole:

https://people.com/crime/ark-w...

There is a kind of suicidal empathy in wanting to help everyone on the street or in the prison system. It denies the realize that for over half the people on the street, they have literally fucked over all their friends, all their family members and anyone who could possibly help them. Their friends are now others on the street who have done the same. Some people don't get in the loop. One of my best friends is a court reporter, and despite all the awful stuff she has to record, she also sees people who come into the court room, cleaned up, their lives turned around and coming off probation. So people can turn around their lives, but they have to want it.

I'm just glad this article wasn't about trying to use AI chatbots to directly change behavior of inmates. That would just be straight up AI-psychosis talk.

If you think software never breaks, I have a bunch of 5.25" disks somewhere that want to have an argument with you.

It's a complete strawman to argue that physical things break. If I buy music, digitally, that won't break and yet nobody sane would expect that the band can at some random time in the future say "we revoke all our music". I can also think of a number of physical things that unless I mistreat them will easily survive me and three generations down the line.

This is not about replacements, it's about taking the product sold away but keeping the money.

And what stops you from making a seperate license to play on the servers provided by the company that is based on good behaviour and/or monthly subscription fees?

This is what the Stop Killing Games movement is also about: Sure, we understand that eventually you wind down the online servers, no problem. But if I paid for a game, why should you have the right to disable it? With no other things I buy can you at any time later come to my house and take them back or disable them. Not with my microwave, not with my shower, not with my lights.

You need to scan your drivers license to buy medicine for your runny nose. How long before you need to have your government ID on file to buy any video card with 32GB of ram (like the 5090 or an R9700)? That's where this is really heading. Tracking all off-cloud AI usage like it's a weapon.

Buy indie games.

It's only the big players who have these delusions.

I'm not saying the right answer is to get a refund. The right answer is to not make the license revokable.

For the theater comparison: If the theatre would invalidate my ticket and throw me out mid-movie, you can be sure that I'd ask for a refund. And in any sane jurisdiction, I'd get it.

Mostly, the difference is some legales, but the kicker is: "revocable". That is an insane difference. I'm quite sure it doesn't say you get a refund if they revoke your license.

Welcome to 1995.

The man deserves a heavy metal concert loud enough to wake him back up.

And I already know the perfect song for the perfect blend to blare into your morning espresso and summon the spirit of consciousness into your cold bleary-eyed body and broken soul.

Might as well spread the joy around developing challengers (not like that!). It's not like the prime mover in New Space is going to need any part of NASA's whopping $40b annual budget.

This seems like a situation where it's very hard to get excited about the idea that it's the regulator's problem. Did some Canadian fed technically have the authority to inspect? Quite possibly. Is there some sort of justification for even the cost of performing the inspection, much less any undesired knock-on effects of the notion that literally all vessels must be inspected no matter what, in a case like this? Seems harder to make that case.

There are a lot of situations where large portions of the public have no choice but to use products and services that they have no reasonable ability to be "informed" about. Either it's simply not possible if you aren't in a position to legally compel honesty from the vendor or it's a case where "informed" is PhD-level work in the area, or a combination of the two; but some rando's aggressively contrarian submarine that loudly and proudly skips all industry certifications and is available on boutique scale for very wealthy customers doesn't seem like one of those cases.

Selling your body scans as a VR skin. AI enhanced, naturally.

It will be here next. Stop bitching about someone's sports team (aka party affiliation). Care about individual issues and support or reject arguments individually. The people in charge want you divided. They act like there are divided in Congress. They are not.