breezybottom

As always, named "generations" are completely arbitrary and meaningless. They're made up by marketers to sell products.

That's about as useful as saying you asked the magical sky fairy.

I'm not sure why an advanced degree is necessary for that at all, besides the pride of a vanity title. It's pretty much what Bill Nye does for science.

You still have to be able to verify the solution to say that it's solved, so I'd say no.

How do you write a grant for that though? "I plan to prompt Claude until it eventually spits out an answer"?

Yes, believe it or not, Christians have more than one crazy belief. There's an entire book full of them.

How could you possibly know if it has potential or not? Sounds like AI psychosis setting in.

Christians don't believe they're made in the image of God? That's news to me.

Science has proven that the earth wasn't created by a magical fairy 6000 years ago, yes. There's very little doubt about that among educated people.

Its only a possibility if you reject modern science.

Sure if you think that AI spiraling out of control is equally as likely as a magical fairy in the cosmos.

It's not nearly as annoying as being tricked into reading them.

Both ways involve sophistry. If you don't like dirty tricks, statistics isn't for you.

Stock art food doesn't usually look unappetizing and bizarre.

Memory already declines with age. AI slop threatens to warp those memories further.

I understand that internet adoption wasn't universal in 2000. You're saying they refused to get it because photos took too long to load. That's an absolutely absurd statement.

You haven't made any specific claims to engage with, just vague polemics.

The amount of strawmen and false equivalencies here is crazy. I bet you can't name one person who refused to get Internet because photos don't load fast enough.

Cute phrase, but that's not how it's used.

Another sweeping claim that doesn't actually say anything. How is it the "exact opposite"?

The Paris Accords have very specific policy goals. Your criticism is incoherent.

A data breach could leak into search engine results, sure.

You still haven't checked the ToS:

"use automated scripts to collect information from or otherwise interact with the Services" — this covers the entire scraping operation.

"make unauthorised copies, modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile or create any derivative works of the Services... or determine or attempt to determine any source code" — e.g. reverse-engineering the X-Argus/X-Gorgon/X-Ladon signing scheme.

"interfere with or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Services... or bypass any measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Services" — TLS-fingerprint spoofing, the empty-200 soft block, and the proxy IP rotation to get around rate limiting.

"use or attempt to use another's account, service or system without authorisation from TikTok, or create a false identity on the Services" — this covers the forged device registrations (fake Android handset + carrier profiles)

"use the Services, without our express written consent, for any commercial or unauthorized purpose" — the website is monetizing the dataset and selling the code itself.

The user only gave TikTok permission to use the videos according to the ToS. And considering the majority of TikTok users are children, I think it's hard to justify morally, even if you could make a legal case.

It's definitely not a strawman. Perhaps you meant that it's a false equivalency, but I don't think that's true either.

With how common data hacks are, why wouldn't a reasonable person expect their medical records to leak? I received at least two such breach notices just last year.

Any company could potentially be hacked, so by that standard all data is public. And no, the ToS is legally binding on the company as well.

What is "public" data? It admits to violating the ToS.

We'd still be living in caves if there weren't people like that.

Yes, the medicalization of normal human experiences is lamentable. But grant money doesn't appear without diseases for pharma to treat.

Sounds like you're just defining ADHD to mean whatever you want it to mean. Thankfully we didn't have TikTok to diagnose hyperfocusers like Einstein with a brain disease, or we never would have got general relativity.