213 karma · joined December 21, 2025
Note that you have introduced the term "fascist dictatorship" into the conversation, not I. So that may be the issue with how you understand my words. Moreover, when I was comparing Russia to UK, I was only comparing them in terms of censorship and amounts of attempts to enforce a state control over the Internet.
And I fail to see how political and especially cultural climate matters in this discussion. Wasn't it the British prime minister, David Cameron, who back in 2015 pledged to ban all online messaging services which provide end-to-end encryption? Isn't that the UK in which Investigatory Powers Act (2016 one) exists? Isn't that in the UK where voices are heard to ban or regulate VPNs by introducing the mandatory age verification? What about the whole recent UK "Digital ID", or so-called "BritCard" effort? Clearly, the political climate may be different, the cultures may be distinct from each other, but still two countries may wander in roughly the same direction - at least as it seems to me in my personal view - when we're talking about censorship.
My argument was never about the "climate". It was rather about the "current weather", so to speak. And the forecast, based on all these data points, looks remarkably similar - but, I must reinforce, only to me - that's my own, personal opinion.
With all that said, to be completely honest - I don’t really care what happens to the UK. It’s not my country at all; I have no connection to it, and what happens there affects me personally, my family, and my friends about 0%. Whether the UK establishes yet another (in the world) dictatorship with an iron curtain, or simply introduces Internet censorship and surveillance for the good of the people, or manages to preserve true democratic values and not trample on human rights - to be perfectly honest, I couldn’t care less. At least - until the UK’s domestic policies start harming other countries through their expression in foreign affairs. For me, the main thing is that nothing like that happens in my country or on my doorstep; the rest isn’t that important, no matter how cynical that may sound...
So you're not anywhere near Russia. Yet.
One common route that comes to my mind is this: block [something-dangerous] for children, then implement age verification for [something-dangerous], then use it as a tool of censorship. It's way easier to identify and track individuals based on their passport/ID/driving license than based on their email, IP address or even phone number. And then you're getting jailed for posts somewhere on BlueSky or X or on any other social platform because they were hate speech/disinformation/discrediting the armed forces (the last one is the real thing in Russia, and I just see the UK as the country which goes the same path) - while actually you was just criticizing the actions of people in power.
And you can also legally ban and block platforms, services and even software which doesn't satisfy the requirements of age verification.
That's how I see it; that is, I repeat, my assumptions and thoughts. I have never, never in my lifetime (which is rather short though) seen such proposals turn out to be good.
Oh yeah, and what about BlueSky, Mastodon and similar? Can they afford age verification? I'm pretty much sure they will be considered "a social media platforms" as well.
> If it's informational then that doesn't sound like something that needs an age check.
That is actually the main problem with all that. Because, as far as I know, some informational websites and forums were legally challenged (sorry if I'm expressing this in a wrong way) because they were hosting content "related to self-harm". Does informational content encourage self-harm behaviours, is it dangerous and should it be brought down? Well, I'm not a doctor and I can't really say, but... I hope you get my point.
---
> And a site encouraging depression, if that actually exists and works?
There's a lot of such websites. They're called "news websites" (joke intended)
To clarify my point: I'm not saying that eating disorders don't harm one's body, but that's a mental health condition.
And just a few hours later, I received a letter informing that the information about the website in question had been forwarded to the relevant authorities, as well as to the website’s hosting provider. To be honest, I didn’t read that second email until the next day (I was sleeping), and it seems the website's hosting provider acted quickly (or the site owners decided to cover their tracks), because when I went to that website to check how it is going, it was no longer active, no longer existed at all. It just was gone. That was about six months ago.
So... I won’t speak for others’ experiences, but in this particular case, they reacted quickly and quite effectively. Perhaps other people have had different experiences.
Disclaimer first: I'm not trying to protect him and I'm not tied to him in any possible way. But since when constantly expressing your own opinion (that's what I assume given the age of the account; maybe I'm wrong, but this seems rather like a person than a bot) is a deliberately malicious activity (as implied by your "trying to sow dissent" expression)? If their opinion doesn't match yours, it doesn't mean that they're evil or something similar. It just means that your views are different.
>>eating disorders
I'm genuinely sorry, but... wait, what? Okay, suicide, somewhat understandable (although some forums where people just share their feelings are endangered by this). Same applies to self-harm. Pornography - well, at least I can understand the motive/justification, although I don't welcome such intrusions in personal privacy. But eating disorders? What? I'm sorry, WHAT? Where's the reasons behind this? Any adequate justification? I apologize, again, maybe I don't understand the thing, but how eating disorders ended up in the same line as suicide, self-harm, pornography and similar?
Just what type of slop this one is? It was not "just after the invasion", it was ~7 months before the invasion. At least if I understand correctly that the start of Russo-Ukrainian war is called "invasion" here.
In my opinion, there's no magic in the software engineering. Everything (or almost everything) is a system that can be described, explained, modified and so on. Applications, libraries, operating systems, kernels, CPUs/RAM/GPU/NPU/xPU/whatever silicon there is, ALUs/etc, transistors, electricity, physics... That's nowhere near "magic". There's always some trade-offs, it's just that you may not be aware of them initially.
DeepInfra, as far as I'm aware, doesn't log your prompts and doesn't retain them in most cases, except "debugging purposes". As their per their privacy policy[1]: "We understand that the inputs you provide to our API and the outputs it generates may contain your Personal Information. We will not store, sell, or train using this data unless we have your explicit consent. We might sometimes store, for a limited period of time, the inputs and outputs to API calls for debugging purposes."
They're not EU-based, though. And I'm not sure how "private" their inference actually is. The throughput is also not the best everywhere, sometimes it can be really slow (although right now both DeepSeek-V4 models seem to be doing fine). However, they have a good pricing, probably on of the best on the market.
I'm not affiliated with them in any way, but when I want to test (I'm not a power user of LLMs, chatbots and agents, not at all; I'm doing it just out of the curiosity) something that is too big for my local hardware, DeepInfra is usually being my go-to provider.
There's is a problem though: we know that it is possible, but we don't know how to (at least not yet and as far as I am aware). So we know the answer to "what?" question, but we don't know the answer to "how?" question.
> I don’t understand why it is allowed to continue.
The answer is even sadder. It's even worse. And it is as follows: because there's not enough people who are taking action, and from those taking action there's not enough people in power to change something significantly. At least that's how I see it. And... I can't even blame those who don't take action - because many people feel completely powerless, they feel like "what you can do to stop this war/other thing if you're just a regular human?"
"Complete" technocracy - yes, although in real life I can’t recall any states that have actually implemented it. But I didn’t say that technocracy is the solution to all our problems. I merely said the following, and I quote: "still has some merit". In other words, there is at least something good about it; there's some elements that could be adopted. Or, in your view, would it be better if the state were run by idiots who don’t even understand what, in theory, is their job?
In that case, we're not talking about an oligarchy or a technocracy either. What you have described is an autocracy - a rule by one. When there's some kind of "god-monarch", the people heading the Ministry of Economy will be controlled by this "god-monarch" and it's unclear if this can be called technocracy or not (at least it is unclear to me; maybe I'm stupid, who knows).
> Does that really make it any better?
Honestly? If you're asking about "would it be any better than now" - I'm not really sure, because I'm not in power to access the actions of the people who hold the positions equivalent to the head of Ministry of Economy - the economy is not my field, I'm not a specialist here. I would only point to the example I'm familiar with (and you're probably not; I'm sorry, I just couldn't think about something like this that I can verify) - in Ukraine, there's a "Ministry of Digital Transformation". This ministry was headed by a Mykhailo Fedorov, whose primary and as far as I know, he studied at the "Faculty of Sociology and Management". Well, that’s not the main point, as he’s studied elsewhere too. The problem lies elsewhere. His decisions have been criticized on more than one occasion by genuine experts - for example, the project known as "Diya", or "the state in a smartphone"; in short, it’s something like access to documents and various government services all in one app. It’s a long story… In short, as a result, there were (presumably) data leaks, and the service crashed more than once or twice due to its flawed security, and all sorts of problems were found with it - you name it, it had it. It's such a shame, to be honest... You can't just go and play with things like that. And now that person is serving as a... head of Ministry of Defence. Hell. To add insult to the injury, guess who is now taking his place at a Ministry of Digital Transformation? Oleksandr Bornyakov, who, as far as I know, holds a degree in marketing. Marketing. ...Nice. Well maybe I don't know something, who knows, who knows... but the decisions, or, rather, their consequences seem to be... let's settle with "terrible".
I'm pretty sure you can recall some similar examples yourself. My point is that although the scenario you described is not as good - because, I guess, no one really wants "god-monarch" controlling (although not making directly) all of the decisions. But if our hypothetical Ministry of the Economy were run by genuine experts who, moreover, work for the good of society - or at least the state as a whole - rather than just lining their own pockets, well, that sounds better than an idiocracy. That was my point.
What you mentioned is not a technocracy. Technocracy is when all decisions are made by real specialists in the field, based on scientific methods (simply speaking). What you mentioned is a plutocracy, a form of oligarchy in which decisions are made by people of great wealth.
I couldn’t just ignore this because, in my view, technocracy (as I’ve described it) still has some merit - for instance, appointing only genuine economists to head a hypothetical Ministry of Economy makes some sense - whereas oligarchy and plutocracy have nothing good to offer. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
In that case, even if it leads to many deaths, it would be difficult - if not practically impossible - to hold anyone accountable, even if it were possible. However, such a turn of events is difficult, or rather, practically impossible to predict, don’t you think? I apologize for not clarifying this point in my original comment, but I wasn’t referring to delayed effects - I was referring to what becomes evident almost immediately (for example, let’s say “within a year and a half at most”) after the drug is used. Yes… I’m sorry, I just didn’t phrase my thought correctly. I apologize for that.
> ChatGPT is not intended to be a drug manufacturing tool though?
That’s certainly the case right now. However, LLMs like GPT, Claude, Gemini, and others weren’t created for waging war, were they? Then why did Anthropic recently have - let’s just say... "some issues in its relationship" with the DOD, if they were not involved in this, if Claude was not meant to be used in war? Why was the ban on using Gemini to develop weapons removed from its terms of service?
You’re right that LLMs weren’t created for such purposes, and to be honest, I believe that - at least for now - it’s simply unethical to use them for that. These aren’t the kinds of decisions and actions that should be outsourced to a machine that bears no responsibility - moral or legal.
> ChatGPT can give bad advice without even having any bugs. That's just how it works.
To continue my thought, this is precisely why I believe it is unethical to give LLMs any tasks whatsoever that involve human lives. There are simply no safety guarantees - not just "some", but none at all - aside from unreliable safety fine-tuning and prompting tricks. For now, that’s all we can count on.
> If OpenAI were running around claiming "ChatGPT can reliably design drugs, you don't even need to test it, just administer what it comes up with" then sure they should be liable. But that would be an insane thing to claim.
They don't claim it yet. And, as one person (qsera) mentioned below your comment:
> The trick is to make people behave like that without actually claiming it. AI companies seems to have aced it.
They probably won't claim exactly that "ChatGPT can reliably design drugs", just because of the possible consequences. But I'm almost certain there will be something similar in meaning, though legally vague - so that, from a purely legal standpoint, there won't be any grounds for complaint. What's more, they are already making some attempts - albeit relatively small ones so far - in the healthcare sector; for example, "ChatGPT Health"[1]. I don't think they will stop there. That's a business after all.
> if ChatGPT claims that a drug design is safe and effective
I have already said before that the OpenAI will not be the only one who should be held responsible in this case. The (hypothetical) user should also bear some responsibility, and in the scenario you described, the primary responsibility should indeed lie with them. That said, I may be wrong, but it’s possible to fine-tune the model so that it at least warns of the consequences or refuses to claim that "this works 100%". This already exists - models refuse, for example, to provide drug recipes or instructions for assembling something explosive (specifically something explosive, not explosives - I recently asked during testing, out of curiosity, Gemma 4 how to build a hydrogen engine - and the model refused to describe the process because, as it said, hydrogen is highly flammable and the engine itself is explosive), pornography, and things along those lines. Yes, I admit, it’s far from perfect. But at least it works somehow. By the way, if I’m not mistaken, many models even include disclaimers with medical advice, like "it’s best to consult a doctor".
In short, what I’m getting at is that the issue lies in how convincing the LLMs can be at times. If it honestly warns of the dangers of using it, if it says "this doesn’t work" or "this requires thorough testing", and so on, but the user just goes ahead and does it anyway - well, that’s like hitting yourself on the finger with a hammer and then suing the hammer manufacturer. It’s a different story when the model states with complete confidence that "this will definitely work, and there will be no side effects" - and user believes it; there should be some effort put into preventing such cases. But otherwise, yes, I think you’re right about the scenario you described.
And to conclude - I don’t think that when it comes to drug development, we’re talking about ordinary people or individual users. In the context of the parent post, it is implied (though I may have misunderstood) that ChatGPT would be used by entire organizations, such as pharmaceutical companies - just as LLMs in a military context are used not by individuals, but by the DOD and similar organizations. I think this shifts the level of responsibility somewhat. Because when OpenAI enters into a contract for the use of its product, ChatGPT, in the process of drug development and manufacturing, it’s kind of implied that ChatGPT is ready for such use.
[1] https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-health/
EDIT: I'm sorry that my reply is so long, I'm just trying to express all of my thoughts in one which is probably not a good thing to do. I would write something like a blog post about that, but there's a lot written about this topic already, so... Yeah, and I have also used translator in some parts because English is not my native language.
That's one thing. In this case, I don't really know if it's possible to test for something like delayed effects. I'm not even sure if you can identify them with 100% certainty; if you can prove that these effects come from this particular drug and not from another one.
> Or trigger on very specific and rare circumstances. Not likely in a trial, but near certain at a population scale.
And this is different thing. "Specific and rare circumstances" will not lead to millions of deaths (I apologize if I’m being too nitpicky about this particular phrasing, but I want to speak specifically in the context of “millions of deaths”). “Specific and rare circumstances” occur even with fully effective and "proper" medications - this is called “contraindications.” But such rare cases, as I’ve already said, will not lead to mass deaths - precisely because they are rare. I apologize again for focusing on the "millions", but please don’t confuse the scale of the problem.
When someone brings up issues related to Linux themselves, that’s clearly not “ignoring” them. It would be a true case of ignoring them if they simply kept quiet about them.
>> If a game has an aggressive anticheat
> the faults of Linux
And besides, as far as I know (well, maybe I'm missing something?), anti-cheat issues aren’t a fault of Linux itself.