This kind of thing also has me surprised to see TikTok only at #4. A lot of content on Meta properties are now reposts from TikTok. It feels like the latter is driving conversation.
That's not the sentiment I tend to hear from people who use both. I've heard a number of people point out that Meta platforms are stale copy of what you saw on TikTok a long time ago.
> "There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know," he said. He declined to elaborate on any specific methods.
There are, though. No need to act naive.
I support President Trump, but I don't support a third term and he wouldn't be able to pull it off (on the basis that a third term is not a good precedent).
The 22nd Amendment clearly states you can't be elected more than twice, not that you can't serve as President more than twice.
The earlier draft of the amendment was that you cannot serve as President more than twice. The "elected" language was intentional.
Or just claim fraud, and refuse to leave. See if the military will back you or not. He's got 4 years to keep weakening institutions and installing loyalist generals.
One would be causing red states to vote their Electors for Big Bird or whatever, thereby ensuring that “no Person have a Majority” of electoral votes [1], thus punting the Presidency to the House. (That or having Vance just throw out “bad” votes, again, throwing the election to the House.)
You say you support Trump but draw the line at a third term because “it’s not a good precedent.” But isn’t the deeper issue whether someone respects the spirit of the Constitution at all?
Laws and amendments aren’t just technicalities they only work because we as a society agree to follow not just the literal wording but the intent behind them. The "spirit of the law" the idea that power should be limited, that no one person should rule indefinitely, and that the Constitution sets boundaries we all agree to honor. If someone is already trying to twist the wording of the 22nd Amendment to find a loophole that’s a clear sign they’re not acting in good faith.
If you don't care when a President shows he doesn’t care about the spirit of the Constitution why would caring about precedent be a thing for you? Precedent is way down the line from keeping to the spirit of the Constitution. China has a constitution that guarantees democracy and free speech. Like Trump and your 'elected' workaround, the reality of their constitution is much different, all with China keeping closely to precedent.
I honestly don’t mean this as an insult or to be demeaning. I find this comment extremely illuminating and I don’t think it should be downvoted.
What you’re seeing here is exactly how cult members speak about their in-group versus out-group.
It is a deeply emotional and all-encompassing experience, just like gryfft describes.
Agreed, no truer answer, and not something that can be argued with for people who feel this way.
I appreciate someone coming out and just saying this instead of playing whack-a-mole on policies which clearly are totally secondary to the emotional overwhelm described above.
> The left wants prostitution, drugs, crime to be legalized.
What’s wrong with prostitution being legalized? Brothels and sex work has been a thing since humans existed.
Can’t speak for drugs, except we have been asking for Cannabis to be taken off the scheduled list.
Nobody is asking for crime to be legalized. In fact in the Bay we have been extremely mad about how SF and their DA has been treating crime, same goes for the Oakland DA.
How about Trump pardoning Ross Ulbricht? The dude was a massive drug dealer. How about pardoning J6 convicts? We all watched the crimes on TV, they had due process and trials.
There's a few kooks pointing guns at people, and should be arrested for doing so. The idea it's a movement or supported by liberals is delusional nonsense promoted by the disinformation of whatever your news source is.
How do you explain the vast majority of Republicans supporting Ukraine over Russia, and in just a few weeks of Trump revealing his full throated support for Russia, most Republicans now support Russia?
You think that's normal?
Who is the Trump equivalent cult leader of the left who has flipped people around that quickly?
> One Dallas man who ICE abducted in February, Neri Alvarado Borges, has three tattoos — one of them with his 15-year-old brother’s name on a ribbon for autism awareness. The 25-year-old is “deeply devoted” to his brother, and at one point taught swimming lessons for children with developmental disabilities.
> These men—human beings with names, histories, dreams—were marched through a gauntlet of armed guards, beaten, stripped naked, shaved, and thrown into overcrowded cells. A photojournalist on the scene described watching men age a decade in two hours. He watched as one young man sobbed, “I’m not a gang member. I’m gay. I’m a barber.” This man was slapped for his tears, beaten for his vulnerability.
I can't believe you actually looked at the man who promised to pardon all the people who tried to hang his own VP for not subverting the election, and decided that 'the competitive integrity of amateur sports' was literally your #2 voting issue. Literally surreal.
Well I hope you’re mad about how DOGE has done nothing on the fraud/waste/abuse front, because so far it’s just been all show no substance. In fact they just kept on spending more.
Also what about the fraud that Elon has been committing? Any qualms there?
> after the election I've seen at least 3 people in my community start wearing mens clothing again
I've heard from multiple trans friends that they are afraid the Trump government will come for them and lock them up for being trans due to actions being taken in state legislatures right now [1] and that for these reasons they are or are considering going completely closeted for their own safety.
I don't think it counts as a "fad ending" when you have chilling effects [2] like this coming from the government.
I’ll accept the idea that a person might believe that trans/cross dressing is a fad, but your argument is that it’s a fad that explicitly follows the possession of the White House? That Biden was a gender-bending taste-maker and there’s a large group of people who went “Wow, now that Trump is in office, I see how cool gender-normativity is.”
> I've seen at least 3 people in my community [no longer feeling safe to express themselves and engage in harmless acts of personal freedom due to the implied coercive threat of a police state]
it's like the sociopathic cherry to top off your other favorite things like child labor, child starvation, bathroom genital inspectors for your wife and daughter, and mass layoffs of black people and veterans.
I'm surprised that you lean on the constitution's plain wording in your last 2 paragraphs (thank you, I, too, read it that way), but you support Trump. Virtually every one of his actions so far requires mental gymnastics to allow them as constitutional, or are plainly unconstitutional, leaving aside violating norms that have worked very well in the past.
Interesting that NPR tries to brand the funding as if its for addiction and mental health care all throughout the article.
For comparison, here's what CNN says:
"These funds were largely used for Covid-19 testing, Covid-19 vaccination and Covid-19 global projects, according to HHS, including for community health workers focused on populations most at risk from Covid-19."
And here's what the Trump administration says:
"The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago"
This reporter is just incorrect, coming up with an incorrect story based on an incorrect Substack post. The Trump administration quote you pasted is in this article.
Yet they respect a lot of things meant for machine to machine interaction. Like server return codes, cookie negotiations, and CAPTCHAs if they behave a certain way.
So they sometimes hit bollards and turnstiles made for other types of code which executes HTTP requests. So they're bots basically, but better (or suitably) behaving ones.
But how did you find those sites that had the robot.txt to begin with? LLM must somehow find the existence of those pages and store that information before they can crawl them further or mark as acceptable source.
I think a distinction needs to be made between ingesting for LLM training and ingesting / crawling because a human asked it to during an inference session.
I have been talking about the latter, agree the former is abusive.
Let's say you had a local model with the ability to do tool calls. You give that llm the ability to use a browser. The llm opens that browser, goes to Google or Bing, and does whatever searches it needs to do.
I think they mean that it's a tool accessing URLs in response to a user request to present to the user live - with that user being a human. Like if you used some webpage translation service, or non-ML summarizer.
There's some gray area though, and the search engine indexing in advance (not sure if they've partnered with Bing/Google/...) should still follow robots.txt.
Yeah, that seems to be a big distinction. If I tell my AI to summarize the headlines from my three favorite news sites every morning, it's just carrying out my request same as if I'd clicked to them, so that seems fine.
But if I say, "Search the web for a low-carb chicken casserole recipe that takes squash and cottage cheese," then it's either going to A) send queries to a search engine like Google, in which case robots.txt already should have been respected, or B) check its own repository of information it's spidered before I asked the question, in which case it should have respected robots.txt itself.
Are you arguing that these are equivalent actions?
The entire web was built on the understanding that humans generally operate browsers, and robots.txt is specifically for scenarios in which they do not.
To pretend that the automated reading of websites by AI agents is not something different…is quite a stretch.
> I the human want the data from that request. I am using a tool to get it for me.
Isn't this a bit of an oversimplification, though? Especially when the tool you're using completely alters the relationship between the content author and the reader?
I hear this argument often: "it's just another tool and we've always used tools". But would you acknowledge that some tools change the dynamics entirely?
> Should I not be able to execute curl to download a webpage because the "understanding that humans generally operate browsers"?
Executing curl to download a webpage is nothing new, and compared to a traditional browser, has about the same impact. This is still drastically different than asking an AI agent to gather information and one of the pages it happens to "read" is the one you were previously navigating to with a browser or downloading with curl.
If you're a content creator who built a site/business based on a pre-LLM understanding of the dynamics of the ecosystem, doesn't it seem reasonable to see these types of "readers" differently?
No, whether I curl it, or I use a browser, or an LLM, it is essentially ALL the same, unless of course the LLM crawls it by itself, without human interaction.
If the scale bothers you, block it, just like how you would block any other crawlers.
Other than that, we all wanted "ease-of-access" (not me though), and now we have it. It does not change anything.
It's reasonable for the content creator to see it differently, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone around the content creator to contort any new approach to the needs of the pre-existing business model.
I agree. This came up in terms of copyright either, or who is pressing the shutter and who owns the copyright to the photo taken. I personally think that the copyright belongs to me, because I, a human, made the detailed prompt, the tool just generated it. Do I not own the copyright if I make something using Photoshop? As far as I know, I do. So, how is AI any different that needs human action (i.e. be prompted)? Because it is better than Photoshop? That is not a good argument, IMO.
In practice, robots.txt is to control which pages appear in Google results, which is respected as a matter of courtesy, not legality. It doesn't prevent proxies etc. from accessing your sites.
Yup. Privatizing both the state and the government. This data connection is worth billions. Just see all the coin scams from the White House and market manipulation. Crime in plain sight.
On a general note, it is quite dangerous that people still are completely blinded by years of "us-vs-them" and all kinds of binary belief traps. There is thundering amount of signals that the things which are happening are not quite normal.
And yet.. This should put to rest any notion that you can drown the public in lies and vitriol as part of "free speech". It kills people's ability to perceive reality and renders them unable to judge things on scales of civility, lawfulness, constructive behavior, ethics etc.
Instead, you get them to excuse all kinds of crimes against law and humanity, as long as they think they smell the musk of "their own pack", which has been defined as "owning the libs, hate towards transgenders/lgbt/foreigners" and other kinds of cultist/tribal feelings.
> Trump administration officials claimed that “some areas of the property could not get cell service,” according to the Times, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt describing the Starlink project as intended “to improve Wi-Fi connectivity on the complex.”
Hadn't though about openai, which does seem like a possible interested party. The problem for them however is that they make money from subscriptions, not ads which presumably makes it much harder to monetize via control of the browser.
