In pre-historic times everyone was equally poor so there was no wealth inequality.

The tribes in the Andaman Islands also have very low wealth inequality, but all they own are bows and arrows and huts.

As soon as you give your kids Internet access, they'll be able to get to adult material.

So because there's porn on the internet, you're OK with Facebook having groomer chatbots?

You get what you ask for with LLMs. In this case though there were no children talking to the chatbots. It was all adults talking like adults but saying they were kids. This was in order to produce the result they wanted (something LLMs are very good at providing, if you ask correctly). It is not a surprise that the bots talked about what the adult humans told it to talk about. Would these same topics have come up with kids? No.

This is pretty much, "I bought this hammer from Facebook. Look what happens when I use it to hit myself in the head." ... "OMG! Facebook's hammer hit me in the head! I'm shocked! Think of the children!"

> Would these same topics have come up with kids? No.

The chatbot "knows" when they are talking to kids? Or are you saying kids would never ask such questions?

I'm saying kids talk about subjects kids are interested in. And in the vast majority of cases, they're not going to be talking about the explicit sex stuff these adults were. Sure, there's going to be precocious kids, some exceptions, but as a rule, yes. Kids aren't going to be doing this because kids don't have the biological motivations to do so. I remember being a kid.

And just to head off the obvious response, yes, I guess a 17 year old is still technically a kid. But that's not what people are worried about here. Let's not conflate.

It's a crime to harbor or aid illegals in evading federal authorities. So this is a legal obligation of every person.

it's also unconstitutional to deny people due process but that's clearly been disregarded by the current administration. Reap what you sow.

An administrative warrant is still valid for arrest, it doesn't need to be signed by a judge. If you think it needs to be then laws needs to be changed, but that is how laws are right now.

It's not valid for arrest on private premises, like a courthouse. Only out in public.

So the judge is no more "obstructing justice" than if I refuse to open the door to let ICE agents in to arrest someone with an administrative warrant, and then that person leaves out the back door.

ICE should have obtained a judicial warrant, but they didn't. That's their fault.

It's actually better to have a trade deficit. Let's say you are a king living in a castle. If you are importing grain from all the surrounding land, the peasants are doing all the hard labor. You have a trade deficit with the peasants and pay them with pieces of paper and goodwill (i.e. dollars). You get to enjoy your life in the castle and read books or whatever else you do in your spare time.

Yes and even better if your pieces of paper are what the peasants use to trade with one another. That means you can make more paper money and it keeps value because it's in demand beyond your own trade needs.

Maybe they are just a clump of cells.

This is missing the most important step though, which is to actually launder the money. Concealing the source of the money is only half of the ordeal, making the money seem legitimate is the second, usually considerably trickier bit. If you suddenly receive $100k from a crypto exchange with no trace of how you came to own it, your bank is going to ask you some questions.

Easy these days with fantasy football being advertised every 30 seconds. There are probably very sophisticated methods already out there running on those frameworks.

If it's a one-time $100k you can just slowly withdraw small portions of it and probably nobody would notice. It depends how much you're trying to launder.

You really think that alerts in banks are that stupid? It doesn't matter if you are sending 100k at once or below some treshold. It will get alerted and spotted anyway. You just need to make transaction look plausible.

I have transferred tons of stuff to my bank over the years (all legal), none of it ever got "alerted" or something I had to describe.

Just use strong typing and mutexes. This isn't rocket science.

I think a lot of people are going to be surprised at how fast "vibe coding" with agents replaces a lot of traditional software engineering. Especially for non-critical software, but eventually where safety matters too since AI can generate tons of test cases.

There is so much hype around agents but I am still thoroughly unimpressed.

They’re fine at basic tasks, but nothing more.

And without any traditional software engineers, who's going to check that those test cases actually do anything useful and verify the important properties of the system? It doesn't matter how many unit tests your Therac-25 has if none of them test the thing that matters.

Well theoretically you can also do E2E testing where an AI agent also clicks around a user-interface and takes screenshots, which are then fed back into it.

That's just another type of test, the question was who's going to check that the tests are actually testing the correct things. Maybe look up the Therac-25 that was mentioned.

Downloading pirated material isn't illegal in the U.S., sharing it is.

Using it for commercial purposes still might be though

That's not what 17 U.S.C. § 501 says.

Really dude?

I think a solid argument can be made that facebook downloaded and shared pirated material with literally every ML employee they had at the time…

EDIT: to those who downvoted, why? Do you disagree with what I said?

Sharing something locally doesn't fall under federal copyright law. They don't have jurisdiction.

You’re making up terms like “locally” and you’re moving the goalpost on your first (apparently incorrect statement)

See 17 U.S.C. § 501 and DMCA. And define "locally" not that it matters.

Yeah right at the start it says

> who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.

Copying itself is infringing. OC has no clue what they’re talking about.

> Yeah right at the start it says

That's not right at the start, and what is right at the start actually is better support for your point. Is this a copy-and-paste error?

Oh yeah. Started copying at the wrong “who”

If you are copying locally you aren't importing it into the U.S.

Read the law and stop being pedantic. The phrase is "or who imports..."

The intent is clear and the penalties are clear and with a few keypresses even the most irrational among us can balance how we wish things were versus how things are.

Given an informed base you can contemplate how to affect the change we all want instead of just posting misinformation in chat rooms.

You can always copy+paste it into an LLM and have it explain the options in 5 seconds.

I like how programmers are all about locality of reasoning and avoiding context switches until the context switch is “go paste it into an LLM”

Just wait 5 years when 99% of code is written by LLM agents.

I just use the man page. Which happily describes all the options in an easily digestible format that does not require either an ineternet connection or massive amounts of power to be wasted on a result that is almost certainly copyrighted and flat out stolen from it's original creator.

I am of a generation where I see these uses of LLMs as exceptionally lazy or showy. Your ready use of a "chatbot" is not an attribute to broadcast like this.