> How would they do that?

Let me introduce you to the phrase "I don't see a mechanism."

>Let me introduce you to the phrase "I don't see a mechanism."

I'm not familiar with this phrase, but I think I did a good job citing a comparable example in my original post.

This is software development, not sales. We rely on our tooling.

If I’m using a calculator to verify my math, I don’t want to use a second calculator to verify the first one.

I am sorry to be the one to tell you but it was already the case that you cannot trust LLMs to solve all your problems 100% of the time.

It was always random. This is no different than any other randomness that already exists in LLMS.

If you are concerned just do benchmarks and see if it is valuable for your usecase regardless.

One of the large (and enjoyable IMHO) challenges in this line of work is developing a de facto understanding of your process and the context it's in service to, and that's only possible if you're actually on your industry equivalent of a "shop floor" for each domain the project touches.

As far as I can tell this part of the job isn't really on anyone's radar anymore.

> I trust governments much less that a conglomerate of competing corporations.

There’s no essential difference between the two from my perspective. Why are these my only choices?

One, in a democracy, is accountable to adults in the same jurisdiction. The other is only accountable to those with financial ties to its success.

>One, in a democracy, is accountable to adults in the same jurisdiction

Or so they say. How's that been working out in practice?

If each country could only sign its own domains it would make sense. If the US could only tamper with .us domains the system could be trusted in general. After all, that's no worse than what they already do by coming to your house and putting a gun to your head.

Pretty well, in my experience.

Yeah, that's why most countries in EU, as well as US, are in a huge dissarray, politicians have all time low approvals, people vote for something and get the opposite, and the economy and social climate turned to shit...

I guess one doing well enough can be oblivious to all this...

Try to read less tabloids.

LOL, talk about out of touch. You need the press to tell you that?

You can also just read "prestige press" - it will tell you the same. Or socio-economic indicators.

What other choices are there?

An international body might work, or just move the issue one step back.

Unprepared for a world that’s replaced French peasantry with strapping an Xbox to your face.

There aren't any display images in science.

Manipulating images for presentation is an automated process unless you're ripping someone off. The changes would be uniform across whole sets.

The problem with trying to pass off a fake image is that you need to be more knowledgeable in each dimension of the effort than the recipients are in just one. If anyone remembers the folks identifying East German video from background hum it's kind of like that.

I don't think we've found any topic or situation that doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause.

If there is such a topic or situation, we can always fall back to the "national security" rationale. That covers everything else the federal government wants to impose on states.

This one seems more well founded than some. AI by companies is commerce, no? And uniform regulation of commerce is under the clause.

I have a large extended family and we're fairly tight-knit. Lots of family gatherings each year. When questions like this pop up we can just ask the "kids" what they think (kind of a neat idea). Here's the top three replies from last Thanksgiving:

1) We can't afford it. 2) There isn't really a "dating scene" anymore. 3) I'm not starting a family in this country.

and that's the end of things because we either can't or won't address their concerns.

The problem with "just" asking people is that people aren't always aware of the reasons for their own behavior, and even if they are, they are prone to giving socially desirable answers, _especially_ in a social setting like a family Thanksgiving dinner.

Point 1 about affordability is directly contradicted by the fact that low income households are having the most children (except for a tiny minority of ultra rich), and those kids are rarely starving to death.

Point 2 is true, and probably a factor, but even married couples and partners sharing a household are having less children than before.

Point 3 is another excuse: fertility rates are low in _all_ industrialized nations in the world, from Canada, Italy, to Australia, to Japan, with perhaps Israel as the only exception. Meanwhile the countries with high fertility rates are absolutely terrible places to live like Afghanistan or Somalia.

Affordability is relative to a lifestyle though. Not starving to death is the absolute lowest level.

Right. Kids cost time and money. So the lifestyle you can afford _with_ kids is slightly lesser than _without_ kids. But this is true at all income levels below the richest 1% or so.

Every person who chose to have kids had to make some lifestyle adjustments. If "we cannot afford kids" just means "if we had kids we'd have to make some lifestyle adjustments" then practically nobody could afford kids in this sense, including the overwhelming majority of people who _did_ have kids and are doing fine.

That shows that "we cannot afford kids" is not really the reason you're not having kids. More honestly it's "we prefer having more time and money over having children" which is not even an objectively bad preference, but people don't like phrasing it that way because it sounds selfish.

So they say "we cannot afford it", suggesting "we _would_ have kids if we had more money", except in reality they still wouldn't, because at a higher income level they'd be making exactly the same argument, too. Which is why we see fertility rates _decreasing_ with income levels, up to a household income of approximately $500K/year in the US.

A man can dream.

It's more about sidestepping the waves of market manipulation.