I think one point of the article is that progressive and leftist candidates have the odds stacked against them by the party itself. We see this repeating now for candidates like Angie Nixon. The silver lining is that leftist candidates are 10x better because they have to be in order to win.

Well, then that should set our expectations on what they mean by “oversight” - placation that will go nowhere

Then why even say impeachment is an option?

Criticizing dems that won’t impeach trump or stop his stupid war isn’t “both sides”. Fetterman is worse than useless

Record oil and weapons manufacturing profits, so it’s not hurting those who matter to him.

I think nitrogen fertilizer made that possible more so than oil

I mean private planes will still fly and there will still be food that goes to waste. People starving isn’t because of oil shortages but because the rich won’t eat the cost and rather kick people onto the street. Now the fertilizer shortage on the other hand…

Ofc fetterman voted no as well. The guy is angling for a job at fox news it seems

What does AM mean in this context?

Jreg is working on something to torture AI agents, so maybe that could convince the AI to kill itself

I mean even defining what is the “common good” is political and that is the point of the exercise. If art exists that is deemed bad for society then we tend to ban it. For example, there are people who define CSAM as art, but the cost to society is so great we don’t allow even the possession of such material.

Back in 1975 we didn’t like who they elected and did a soft coup on our ally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal

Or dress up Patel as a racoon and send RFK in.

And they will guard the reflection pool from Aunt Tifa

I wouldn’t mind being a garbage truck driver, but I do mind being forced to pee in a bottle to make a quota

Need new leaders too. Do nothing democrats leading the party will continue to do nothing. That being said, do nothing is better than do fascism…

Wanted to expand on what others have said about the randomness of LLMs being unsafe, because that response angers those who think “alignment” is the solution. Alignment is additional training to constrain the randomness to not do bad things like crime. But even the staff that works on aligning this software have their doubts about whether this process will make the software safe (this article), and even their own researchers are coming out and saying “oops, it did a crime” but in a way where it hypes the ability of the software (see other articles about it hacking). Then there is the recent news of OpenAi’s recent model that drops chain of thought observability (a feature the let’s you read what the model is “thinking”) - a very useful tool in reviewing whether the model is engaging in unsafe activities. They sacrificed observability for benchmark performance. This tells us the people developing this software don’t think it will ever be safe, but they are trying to spin it as “because it can out smart us” when in reality it is simply unpredictable and they are making it less predictable to make it more “capable”. If we started holding these companies accountable for these rogue hacks and psychotic episodes then we would start to see serious thought put towards these models being safe or at the very least guidelines around when not to use the models.

Here’s an idea: don’t use unsafe software where safety is needed.

If the orange turd wants it then it probably isn’t good for us

Rocket ships in reverse seems to describe our economy lately