Nothing wrong with supporting the defense of your country. The thing is, the country in question is the biggest bully in the world. For some decades there was the pretence of basically being the world police and defending the world against authoritarianism, but that mask fell very quickly last year. This is not about supporting the defense of the country, this is about remaining the biggest bully. If Hegseth wants terminators so bad, why doesn't he develop them himself, with all the talent at the pentagon? Maybe even hire for it.

The US need to understand that they cannot bully their allies and expect them to remain allies. I don't know what is so complicated about this, but clearly it is not understood. Read it a hundred times or something. If you want allies, you behave like an ally. The word "ally", which you chose to use, is not about describing hierarchy, but collaboration based on a mutual interest.

A use case for LLMs

Blaming the human or blaming the gun are two extremes that miss the actual point. Mass shootings are not perpetrated by guns alone. They are also not perpetrated by humans alone. There are perpetrated by humans with guns. So the logical solution is to reduce the amount of humans with guns. It's ok to have guns, just make sure they don't end up in the hands of humans too easily or too often.

Following that logic, the employer should be fine with an AI-supported application that addresses XYZ. But you're missing the point. The point is that if you ask people to do a certain job without a certain tool because you want them to be able to work without that tool, then use that tool yourself to evaluate how they performed, then you signal that you cannot work without that tool yourself and you should not expect to be taken seriously.

Fifty corporate landlords own over 3 million apartments, while millions of people struggle to pay their bills.

You're missing the bit about libraries being safer than coding your own version in certain cases. LLMs make this worse, not better.

Thankfully, the supreme court justices you are referring to have no jurisdiction over the people who did that research.

According to people like you, project 2025 was just a fake/nothing serious/nothing that Trump planned to implement. Now your tune has changed to it not being "a conspiracy to take all our money and get us all poor like yourself". I wonder what will be your next iteration.

We live in a capitalist society, we have a few super wealthy persons who managed to rise extremely above everyone else. Calling them capitalist overlords is not exactly a stretch. You might be projecting something here but I'm unsure what.

Yes but the capitalist overlords need you to function enough so that they can replace you with AI. Somehow it makes sense.

The EU parliament is also one of few legislative entities in the Western world that care about consumer protection. I don't agree with everything it produces, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong. Although twelve year olds tend to think in such absolutes.

This is not about data and significance. This is a breach of trust.

Companies like Anthropic need smart people. Are you suggesting that there are many "peaceniks" (whatever that means) among smart people?

You are making it very clear that you will not be convinced by either reason or evidence.