infinite_spin

Anecdotal experience tells me that they're just better at hiding it than previous generations. Gen-z is depressed, and depressed people reach for drugs and alcohol to cope. I think we're going to find that the data on this has been manipulated.

relevant: https://libroot.org/posts/what-happened-to-the-snowden-archi...

Agreed, and while I want to see AGI come into existence, I'm also for policies aimed at harm reduction. This doesn't have to be an all or nothing form of argument.

It could be argued that "tech" directly led to climate change, e.g. https://www.history.com/articles/industrial-revolution-clima...

This argument should be reframed as "AI has the potential to cause catastrophic loss of life". It's too high of a bar to prove that AI will "wipe out humanity". It's sorta like climate change, it's easier to show that weather patterns are becoming increasingly dangerous.

yet those movements came with clear definitions. If you have a new definition for intelligence, which isn't just designed as a definitional dodge, then please provide one

I think it's only a moving goalpost if you can show that the goalpost has moved with a new definition that fits our current usage of it. The people saying "this isn't intelligence", and then claim "we don't even know what intelligence is", are encouraged to offer such a definition.

That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate that a reasonable person should use a modern definition.

> Those are distillations of existing knowledge.

Definitions are "formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition)

> They are necessarily behind the status quo.

The existing state or condition would be what is written in the dictionary, not whatever personal definitions you've constructed.

> "You can't call this newfangled contraption a computer, because a computer is a person!"

Seems like a straw man. A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions.

Why would a set of dictionary definitions not suffice?

I think rules can also enhance freedoms, for example having rules in national parks keeps those parks in better condition for future generations, which in a way supports the freedom to enjoy that nature. Have rules for driving makes it safer to drive, thus preserving my freedom to drive. We can wax on like this, but what I'm really searching for are pros and cons for each rule we propose.

What rules need to change that wouldn't adversely affect existing freedoms?

Can you explain what you mean by "job" and "you must take it".. what does that mean in concrete terms?

And what do you mean by "sacrifices"? For example, if students don't agree to TurnItIn's policy, it becomes significantly harder to take classes. Do you mean to say students should have to suffer the consequences of these sacrifices just because we can't seem to support their right to privacy?

the dictionary definition seems fine:

> a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people. > the state of being free from public attention.

From this, it seems obvious that a person should not be observed in our digital spaces without clear consent, where consent is not tied to preclusion of goods or services (i.e. without coercion).

Kind of related: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anishasircar/2026/09/01/federal...

> Federal Judge Rules Pentagon’s AI Blacklist [of Anthropic] Violated The Constitution

I don't see the common citizen having this as an option

Some exploit hunters sell strictly to the grey/black market to avoid opsec issues. If you're selling on both, you're more likely to be identified by both.

I remarked upon distribution in a comment above

> however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it

My argument is that the recording itself is not a copyright violation, not that distributing such a recording couldn't be construed as one (however I disagree on principle with that being illegal as well, as it puts an undue burden on the exercise of free speech, which should include the ability to accurately and entirely recite what I had experienced in a public place).

where I live, anything in public view is allowed to be filmed/recorded, which is how the news can record things on the street without getting a release from those that they filmed, and they certainly distribute those recordings

You expose your IP address even when not seeding, and I don't know if this person was seeding these torrents

I'm not a fan of joking about those efforts. The people doing that work to catch predators and prevent their evil from reaching the general public are heroes.

I don't follow your logic, VR headsets are fully capable of displaying 3D scenes. That's a solved problem.

I'm not a lawyer, but in my view copyright violations center around distribution, not necessarily the method by which a work is obtained

e.g. if someone is reciting a poem they wrote in a public park, and I make a recording of that recitation, I have not violated their copyright in doing so, however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it

I suspect their goal is to train a model for detecting adult material, so that they can block it, which isn't necessarily an amoral goal

Now I wonder if my agent(s) can detect when I'm coding drunk.

"Gather ye rosebuds while ye may" comes to mind

True, but you do get it under clear terms, for a duration that is both obvious and well established.

It's nothing like democracy though, and the concept of paying (or not paying) to vote is antithetical to a democratic process. We should not confuse the two.

it's possible your doctor is treating you for depression as well as ADHD

My advice: let these people think what they want, it reduces competition in an already saturated market