Oh the time where Biden tried to do a thing, the SC said to stop and then he stopped and even when he tried a different way and the courts ruled against it then he respected the court (and said as such) and then stopped it.

Also unlike the tariffs the SC actually stayed the plan until judgement unlike the tariffs where the SC allowed them to just go on. Hmmm, almost like this current court leans a certain way. Hmmm.

Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

Ohhhhh so divisive you big fat baby.

Ahh yes those BLM of protests of 2021 who could forget.

Motherfucker who was President in the year 2020?!?!

No argument.

Sorry but it's 2026 and this just means embarrassed conservative.

Biden constantly reached out to conservatives, he made sure to say that it was "not all Republicans", he worked in a bipartisan manner on legislation on the infrastructure bill, he was ready to sign the very conservative Lankford immigration bill. He appointed a very moderate AG who didn't immediately bring the hammer down on Trump (his fatal mistake IMO) and even with the very obviously illegal Mar-A-Lago documents case the National Archives gave Trump over an entire fucking year to just give the shit back and Trump basically forced their hand to go raid to get it.

Sorry but the Biden era was extending a hand of good faith to Republicans to come back from the brink of psychopathy and all they did was slap it and digress into their worst impulses even more.

No more, Republicans want to act like children then they need to be disciplined like children.

In general, the parents have consent over the child, and in sometimes that makes sense. If my child doesn't want to get a vaccine, at age 4, it's not their call. If they don't want the vaccine at 16, well, that's a different story. We ask kids what they want for Christmas, Easter, birthdays, so I don't think asking them if you can violate them on social media is too much to ask.

Obviously. Until you add external input and command injection becomes a thing.

Agreed. General LLM tech is obviously a dead end, at least without some fundamental breakthrough. Specialist models may or may not fix hallucinations and command injection, but at least there seems to be a reasonable chance that they will or that other safeguards can be put in place.

Oh they won't give it up willingly and they have every incentive to keep acting authoritarian with Trump-ian rhetoric and actions. That incentive needs to be broken and punishment is exactly what's needed to do that. If Republicans suddenly know that acting like amoral sociopaths will net them prison or political exile than we've created a deterrent.

I mean, DOGE? Also they didn't need to do it, they were able to leverage the existing agencies by gutting them and replacing the leadership with loyalists. The FCC is a perfect example, the current commissioner is threatening entertainers and license holders while wearing Trump lapel pins. The concept of independent agencies is out the windows.

This was all in Project 2025 and our media also failed by letting Trump just lie about it during the campaign when it was clearly transparent he supported the measures in there.

Most people are not smart and cannot assess reality adequately. Hence I would say this is a fundamental product defect and should make the providers liable for any and all damage done. This is, after all, a product marketed to the general population, when it clearly should be experts-only.

While not surprising (LLMs are not reliable instruction followers and cannot be), this pretty much kills the idea of LLM-Agents in most usage scenarios. And it is even worse: As LLMs do not have a separation between data and instructions, this means that command-injection attacks seem to be getting even easier. Another reason that LLM-Agents are a very bad idea.

A truly non-lazy person, then, would have to conduct a detailed spectrographic assay of all of the pipes (or at least sufficient samples from each lot) to accurately determine the precise composition of each, because all of them contain impurities and aren't merely copper and phosphorous.

In general, getting a truly pure sample of almost any element is incredibly-hard, and outside of laboratories (and even in laboratories, most of the time) it just doesn't matter. In the case of transporting anti-protons, standard "pure" copper is apparently inadequate, because it's not pure enough.

I expect this apparent disobedience is mostly just a matter of how it weighs the components of its prompt. The LLMs typically receive a set of prompts including a "system" prompt with some data and instructions, then one or more "user" prompts that are interleaved with "assistant" prompts (the conversation history), and both the user and the system prompt might contain "metaprompts" (where the llm is told to read a block of text, not obey it, but do something with it, and that block of text might itself contain text that looks like instructions to do things).

So the LLM assigns weights to all of this which, in theory, give the highest priority to the most recent user prompt that is not a nested block of text to analyze, and a falling cascade of importance to the other prompts. But that is complicated by potential instructions in the system prompt that specifically say they should override user instructions and disallow or require certain responses. So it can all get very complicated.

Not only must the LLM sift through all this complexity, but the LLM lacks the sort of critical thinking and importance evaluation capabilities that humans have. "Understood" things like "don't break the law, don't lie, don't do things that would cause more harm than good" etc., aren't really there in the background of its data processing the way they are in the background of a human cognitive process.

So, crazy things come out. This isn't a surprising result given the actual complexity of what we are making these things do.

Here's a case of a very experienced journalist getting caught by including made-up quotes that had been hallucinated by the AI he'd used to summarize research information: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Vandermeersch added: “It is particularly painful that I made precisely the mistake I have repeatedly warned colleagues about: these language models are so good that they produce irresistible quotes you are tempted to use as an author. Of course, I should have verified them. The necessary ‘human oversight’, which I consistently advocate, fell short.”

When even experienced journalists fail to find AI hallucinations, you really can't expect unpaid volunteers to do better.

https://storage.courtlistener....

IANAL, but it sure seems to me the administration lost on all of the claims (except for one or two where the judge said, "I don't need to go here, because I've already made it moot.")

Now there's still the other case on this, which is in the DC Court of Appeals, addressing one specific law where the recourse is that venue. Briefs are due in April, so the first hearing will probably be in May. Track that case here: https://www.courtlistener.com/...

I do full drive encryption locally on a Mac, I choose not to use my Apple ID for rescue purposes. My rescue key is displayed on the screen, this key never leaves my system, Apple never sees it. Hence when Apple is ordered by a court to provide the key they are unable to comply. Unlike instances where the user chose to use their Apple ID for rescue.