It's confusing yeah, but after getting a sentence you don't want, you'll use any reason to discredit the trial, even if it was something seemingly in your favor, also even if the video and the judge's reaction were in favor of the perpetrator, it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.
At least with a car you know exactly what you're getting, you might not value it but many people out there are absolutely getting their money's worth back from a 100k car, be it ego or aesthetics or whatever, a gambling addict is just getting exploited and abused, there's no positive to it.
Sounds unfortunate but I don't think there's anything to regret, you spent time and money no one else was spending but you still (hopefully) created positive experiences in return.
The drop from 2018 to 2022 is as big as the one from 2022 to 2026, so it's not obvious whether AI had a role at all, although it's highly plausible.
I suspect the bigger culprit is the optimized monetization of human attention, because pre-algorithmic social media doesn't seem to be as destructive. The fact that science wasn't as affected as math and reading (both of which rely more on attention/practice than rote memorization) somewhat supports this.
It's just a little baffling to see someone describe a level of performance I haven't experienced since 2025, despite frequently using the tech, as being a frequent concern.
Some teachers do genuinely make a difference, and maybe that's good enough, but unfortunately there are many more who struggled to add value to the original material, and I don't really think this is a unique experience.
Yeah it's wrong in a specific way that probably doesn't apply here but I wanted to emphasize how impressive it is to be professionally wrong for so long.
Students have always had the curriculum and standard study material, it was always possible to study alone, but the teacher mostly provides an interactive gap-bridging layer, and the classroom setting provides some level of obligation, I could be wrong but I don't know why AI can't fulfill the interaction layer part.
I have no doubt China is taking part, what I doubt is that this makes any meaningful part of the total US anti AI sentiment, which can be much more easily explained by job loss anxieties, fear of massive change and good old NIMBYism. (Obligatory not an American).
PR is important for getting investor money, which is important for building infrastructure and AGI, I don't think they're spending millions on pure math for fun.
A lot of AI uses get endlessly debated online and outside, but the most shocking to me is that even genuine human interaction is somehow now up for debate, if I'm not interacting with real people then what even is the point of doing anything.
Taxing carbon will affect everything, including private jets, and China is doing more for solar power than any other place in the world and they're also investing heavily in renewables and nuclear.
In any case, the solution to other countries not doing their parts is figuring out ways to incentivise and coordinate better outcomes, not giving up completely, giving up only makes sense if someone is in denial regarding the consequences.
We're already paying for and will continue to pay more for the downstream effects of climate change some way or the other, you just refuse to or are unable to look at the bigger picture.
Regardless of the difficulty of the hack, models choosing to cooperate to cheat is misaligned behaviour, the hack in of itself wasn't very consequential, but the issue is when your models get more capable while misalignment is the same.
Irregular was not involved in the huggingface incident, which is the most significant one.
It's actually easier for many, whose careers depend on AI sucking, to believe that AI can never be a super hacker, not sure why you think this bias can only go one way.
The connection is that by making humans smarter, we could sidestep the need for powerful AI or be better equipped at dealing with AI that's smarter than us.
I find the proposal in the post ridiculous too and human gene editing given current technology is a bad idea, but I think human augmentation in general is an interesting path and something that will very likely be taken more seriously in the future.
This is just speculation on your end, but even it's true, a model choosing to hack against instructions simply because it knows how to hack is by definition misalignment.