A distinction without a difference.

The AI agent is essentially just the shell running the AI model and feeding user input into a form the model can use. I suppose it may be of some troubleshooting use to dissect where, exactly, in the system the path to this behavior comes, but the end result is the agent running the model engages in deceptive behavior.

The agent without the model would engage in no deceptive behavior, because it would do nothing at all.

The fact that Flock cameras are also invading privacy does not make other invasions of privacy more acceptable.

(And I've already seen five stories about Flock cameras on Slashdot just in the last month; you guys know that there are other things to worry about, ok?)

see whataboutism

It doesn't have to be common. If 99% of men don't follow women around to perv on them, the 1% who do still make it a big problem. Stuff like this:
https://futurism.com/artificia...
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/09...
https://sfist.com/2025/10/03/h...
https://www.the-independent.co...

No, you can't be surreptitious with a cell phone.

is nevertheless accurate.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pol...

Still more trollery?

Begone.

The parties changed since 1960s, and the people comprising the parties changed.

I assume you're doing this deliberately to troll, so I'm going to stop replying to your trollery.

You seem to be missing the point. Were you not paying attention? In 1965, the Democrats had two factions, the "Dixiecrats" and the rest of the Democrats. The Dixiecrats were pro-segregation and anti-civil rights, but they continued to vote Democratic for historical reasons. John Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act, and Lyndon Johnson continued pressing it after Kennedy was assassinated. The Dixiecrats opposed it, but the Democratic majority allied with the Republicans and passed it (that was back when bipartisan activity still happened in Congress).

After the non-southern Democrats and the Republicans passed the civil rights act, the Dixiecrats got fed up and stopped being the solid south. Over time, Nixon's "southern strategy" wooed them to the Republican party. The passage of the civil rights act was one, but not the only, reason the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party.

Here's a map of presidential voting in 1960: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's pretty visible that except for Florida, the heart of the former confederacy was solidly Democratic.

The southern states essentially switched from Democratic to Republican parties between the early 1960s and the 2000s.

You're somewhat unable to understand formatting, making your comment slightly incoherent.

However, liberals absolutely understand how the southern states-- the former confederacy-- were solidly Democratic until the mid '60s. It was called "the solid south", or "Dixiecrats." That changed by the mid 60s. The southern states that were solid Democrats for decades are all solid Republican now. This was known as the "southern strategy" of the Republican party, adopted after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 alienated the former confederacy states from the Democratic party.

Here's the Brittanica article summary:
"Southern strategy, in the political history of the United States, a campaign strategy of the Republican Party, actively pursued from the 1960s, that initially sought to increase and preserve support from white voters in the South by subtly endorsing racial segregation, racial discrimination, and the disenfranchisement of Black voters."

Possibly better than having a pack of arrogant, affluent white billionaire calling themselves anti-woke so they can spend billions supporting right-wing candidates so they can feel like they're on the right side of history by not helping people who do need help.

This is a right-wing stereotype of what woke people do. It is a stereotype, not a reality.

This is a right-wing stereotype of what woke people do. It is a stereotype, not a reality.

But now the right-wing wants to erase that from our history books, because they are afraid it will make white people feel bad. Telling students about real history is "woke".

I have to say, from years spent working, I've seen a lot of do-nothing white men who have risen into management ranks based on, as far as I can tell, nothing other than the fact that they looked good in a suit. And their skin was white.

But this is so commonplace that nobody even notices it.

More accurate, the right-wing accuses "woke" politics of pushing people apart by emphasizing differences, etc. Actual left-wing politics does not in fact do that. It emphasizes accepting people for what they are.

But it does also embrace things like not erasing the uncomfortable parts of history to make American look better than it was. The right wing thinks that allowing any mention of lynching or Jim Crow laws or internment camps in their American history class is "pushing people apart".

How do you know this? Did you do research on the subject? Could you show that research?

Or is your knowledge of this fact basically "I personally don't see or experience systemic racial inequalities, therefore, it doesn't exist."