Did you report back and inform the LLM of the solution, so it could improve its answers?

Also, does /. permit LLMs to drag the /. swamp and scrape out these nuggets?

It's the opposite of a dummy load in electronics. Dummy loads are intended to safely dissipate power, while AI bots are intended to broadcast...

From Sec 230a:

(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:

(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

From the beginning:

- The Internet has developed and expanded sufficiently that it no longer needs the protection nor encouragement offered via this legislation.
- The development of the Internet has actually reduced and limited users' control over the information they have access to. That is censorship, for those of you in Rio Linda.
- The development of censorship, protected by Sec 230, has challenged the development of true diversity of political discourse, unless you're considering false information and misrepresentation to be diversity. And there is an argument for that.
- The Internet is suffering under implicit government regulation. Sec 230 here is somewhat defeating one of its own stated purposes.
- Americans, and indeed the world, are relying on the Internet so much more than they did prior to enactment of Sec 230. it is even more important now.

Sec 230 is used to permit Internet 'publishers' to escape responsibility for their censorship, promotion, and fabrications., Not that fabrication in the American press is anything new, and has never needed legislative protection before. But the Internet is the current means of yellow journalism, and as such needs nor should have protection beyond the First Amendment. Repeal it now.

The real surprise here is that the people who run WaPo think the AI-generated posts are different than their regular WaPo-generated posts...

Actually, they knew that all along. They just had to issue disclaimers to redirect the prols to the preexisting sources of misinformation. And to run interference, adding an apparent air of legitimacy to the human-generated content.

Piling on, Arizona Corporation Commission races are indeed contentious. They bring out activists that desperately want to turn Arizona into a California clone.

And I doubt the ACC will try to force this datacenter on Chandler. If you wonder how our Democrat Governor thinks of things, she is busy celebrating an "Ag-to-Urban” Groundwater Conservation Approval", just to ensure 825 new homes can be built in Buckeye, which were blocked because metro Phoenix does not have sufficient assurances of water supply for the next 100 years to permit further growth in that city.

It's darned hard to oppose development in Arizona. Too many stakeholders want to make their profits. Even Katie Hobbs will bow to them. Oh, wait, she bows to whoever greases the skids.

You had to go anonymous to post this? Pathetique...

Check the 3 year PMI at Trading Economics. Not obvious that manufacturing activity in the US has done anything but increase over the last 12+ months.

You have different statistics? Of course, we know what statistics are, don't we? Even that site has conflicting data, because there is no single measure that tells us much. Bitterness is not an acceptable economic policy.

That's so 80s. Browsers got a lot more functionality in the 90s. You were there, right?

The complaint is, at its right, AI replacing people. That's not a new fear. And I expect it to play out much like past technological changes. Not without pain. SMH not without advantages.

Here's the trick...

RISC-V is ostensibly an open source ISA. So as designers build new implementations, they may be advancing the capabilities of the ISA and contributing to the RISC-V universe.

But history teaches us that despise licensing and such, open source advances often get locked behind commercial license forks, and it is a fight to get these outfits to obey the true license. ARM suffered from this occasionally, but not like I expect RISC-V to. This chip ISA has the potential to upend the whole business.

Unless the big stuff gets locked away.

Combine Qualcomm's IP and expertise with the RISC-V platform, a nearly blank slate, and we could see cool stuff. Giving back to the RISC-V community? Not Qualcomm's strength from experience.

But RISC-V could win, if the innovators aren't locked out or patent-trolled into oblivion.

The one guy concept has been around for a while. Sometimes they use consultants, sometimes it's the gig economy that gets them work that can be done on demand. The AI is going to be another one of those tools. But you don't need two people to have a corporation. I think that describing AI as" replacing the corporation" is really just scare talk. The AI is going to replace jobs, it's also going to make new jobs possible or attractive. As with most all technology that we've seen over the past century, we can't predict all of the effects. I don't think it's the end of anything, though. Monolithic tools that operate in virtually every facet of life bring with them the risk of singular failures. That'll be interesting to watch

I think the promotion of a Lunar mission is more to give NASA some $ to spread around to their long term partners.

And the NASA-derived mission is just flailing in the dark, what a mess.

Your landscaper having a degree in botany makes a little bit of sense. At least in Europe where they value quality. Not that you don't get good landscaping in America, but the equation is slightly different

'replace' with what?

Definitions. AI will take the place of non-AI in much of the corporate world. Already begun. Film at 11.

First, university education is not a monolith. Technical degrees from institutions that actually teach the subject matter have value - engineers still engineer, theoreticians still work out theory, these sorts of degrees and others have real value, even in the AI future.

Second, universities that teach 'soft' subjects, liberal arts, etc., have a more difficult value proposition. And it has been, at least at prestigious institutions, connection. That is, connection to the influential, the gatekeepers to profitable employment. In fact, it is more dependent on the prestige of the institution than the quality or caliber of education. Without choosing moral or political sides, influence, connection, prestige, access to the higher-paid careers.

Only that isn't working as well as it is sold. Certainly the institutions in next tier down have less and less to sell, and placement statistics show this. Much of this is the reality of corporate employment today, if you're not an NGO, government agency or affiliate, or political influencing entity, you got very little work to offer. The starting pay is lower, the career prospects dimmer, it's not good for the English Lit major unless they present something unique.

Connection to employment was always the driver. And connection to classmates used to be rungs on the career ladder. For the most recent generations, that is failing because they are not connecting to classmates. And this fellow classmate connection always was expected to become the future career connection, even if it was merely a reference.

This all points out a deeper problem. Recent generations of entry-level employees are too often socially inept. They have a hard time fitting in, and while it is popular sport on /. to rail about corporate ineptitude, immorality, and unethical existence, you should fit in before you go about remaking the corporation. Or, put more bluntly, you need to be in there to change from the inside. But the incoming generations are so inept that they are stalling their development, or worse, risking the process skipping them entirely. Just as we get reports of teaching degree programs that fail to teach how to teach, many business administration programs fail to teach how to get along. And you get bull in a china shop entry-level recruits that take a while to figure out what the game is, much less how to play it.

Connection? Well, a final note. University campuses have become battlegrounds, where the most innocent remark becomes a microaggression, the transgressor is expelled, and he perception of justice is the purpose of the institution. I don't advocate eliminating codes of conduct , but if universities cannot even employ due process and fair play, they are defective. No wonder they are making their student bodies into islands.