Neither of these would even check, let alone mate, no matter whether the king is e1 or g1

Inferno has the Devil frozen at the heart of hell, struggling in vain to break free, his beating wings producing the freezing wind that keeps him trapped. Not my idea of a ruler, to be honest.

to lie about the results and to generate more anxiety in others to keep up with your made-up achievements

Emperor's New Clothes style "we all need to pretend to like it" is an unfortunately common effect of decision-makers deciding they know some brilliant thing and any naysayers just aren't suited to appreciate the brilliant thing.

I think at least some of the wasteful or even harmful ways you describe of using LLMs come from this push to use it and "be more productive" with it.

Some, sure.

Others from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of language models. They're text processors and generators designed to sound human. They can't tell facts from filler.

Just earlier, I saw a post elsewhere about someone having generated an article or something which cited three experts – wrongly, because it doesn't actually know what the relation between the text in quotes and some supposed source is or why it needs to be verbatim to be a correct quote. That's not a bug, nor a hallucination or whatever anthropomorphic euphemism people come up with for "random output happened to be wrong" (though, to be fair, "random" glosses over a highly complex prediction system that can predict plausible text quite impressively, even if it can't predict truth).

Students relying LLMs to generate their coursework are falling into that trap without any pressure of productivity. They don't get that the purpose of coursework is to learn about the source material and the structure of academic writing rather than just produce text. They also don't get that the LLM won't look up, interpret and cite sources accurately in accordance with the subject of the question. It will generate a plausible-sounding answer to the question, and therein lies the danger: If you don't already know the answer, how could you tell if it's true?

The same goes with people "looking up" information. Gemini will produce some text statistically correlated to the text it has read, but you never know whether that correlation reflects facts or whether it falsely attributes some shady business to companies who had nothing to do with it (about which there was a court case in Germany recently).

Vibe coders without programming experience cannot qualify the output of their generator. It's always harder to understand code you didn't write (or maybe wrote long ago), but if you don't even know how to write code, you'll have no experience to compare it to.

People using AI for coping with stress may run into a trap where they end up unlearning to cope on their own and potentially take on even more stress.

The common thread behind these is that these AIs lack the understanding of the concepts they're producing text about and semantic connections between them, and accordingly cannot treat these things with the same nuance and precision that humans can.

But the ways they're harmful doesn't immediately become apparent. "Report where it's harmful" doesn't really work if it takes two years for a critical security flaw to surface that some code generator produced and nobody with experience caught. You may never notice your ability to deal with stress being eroded until some day you can't ask your robot buddy for help and just crack instead.

They plant traps in your education, your knowledge, your work, your psyche. To encourage people to use them without thoroughly preparing them for those traps is reckless.

It's some weird misconception that, like heaven, hell needs to have some sort of ruler. Naturally, the intuitive thing is to pick the mightiest entity in there and declare it the king, because that's kinda how we perceive kingship. Aside from the fact that literally all the entities in there are convicts imprisoned by the final judgement, at which point there's only one eternal king left:

It's a fucking sea of fire, what the fuck are they gonna rule?

You get all your teams to build some expertise and (hopefully) get a sense of where the technology might have some ROI

You'd run the risk that they instead develop a dependency or overreliance on the tech. They probably won't think about the "I" part of ROI and evaluate how many tokens a given task produces relative to the saved time and effort.

Throttling it later might then cause a drop in productivity until they relearn how to do simple stuff they could do themselves but delegated to AI instead, whether or not it's ideal for the task.

For example: "search and replace" requires the LLM to ingest and then produce the whole document as output. Aside from the question whether it'll have caught all instances and replaced them without otherwise altering the text (which a casual user won't check), the amount of output tokens correlates with the size of the text.

That's a lot of wasted tokens for a task they could have done without AI, but so long as asking the computer is quick and convenient, they won't think twice. Then, once the tokens are throttled, they'll suddenly realise they've run out of tokens early because they burned a ton on tasks that seem trivial to them, leaving none for the more complex tasks they'd actually prefer to delegate (whether or not they should). They might not make the immediate connection which tasks eat so many tokens either, so they'll take a while having to try all their use cases again, see how expensive they are, run out of their allotment early and wait for the next period.

If you're gonna have people figure out how to use it, you'll have to throttle from the start to make them also figure out how to use it economically.

Also, mandatory classes on the limitations and reasonable uses. Don't let it get to the point where they find out the hard way that it's not actually intelligent and has no concept of truth.

Without knowing what else went down, a lot of diplomacy hinges on otherwise minor gestures to signal intent. Stuff like the head of state summoning the ambassador to receive an admonishment on behalf of their country isn't technically a big deal, but it's a safe, nonthreatening way to express discontent. It doesn't threaten sanctions or worse, but it does demand the other take it seriously.

To extend your hand is a token of trust and good faith, or just basic respect for the other party. Snubbing it is then an act of disrespect, a breach of protocol that could end up sabotaging negotiations. Why should I trust you to negotiate in good faith, if you refuse even the most basic gesture of good faith?

But Iran clearly isn't worried whether the US will take offence or trust them. That is the part that makes it clear who's desperate: Iran believes and signals that belief that the US has no choice but to trust them. They can afford to be rude because the US has no effective recourse. The negotiations are going to happen on Iran's terms, because the US needs them to happen at all.

It's kind of a bully move, but Iran can't exactly afford to choose the moral high ground and the US doesn't have a leg to stand on to complain about bully moves either.

Edit to add, upon reading the article: The same logic applies to making the US delegation wait. It's not polite, but the US needs the negotiations and accordingly their delegation will grit their teeth and wait rather than making their indignation clear by walking out.

Natürlich ist es trotzdem anderweitig problematisch, dass hier ein weiterer Grund gefunden wird, Teile der Gesellschaft, besonders in der Unterschicht vertreten, von schwimmen und schwimmen lernen abzuhalten.

Zumindest diesem Grund könnte teilweise abgeholfen werden, indem man einerseits auch andere Sprachen auf den Schildern vertritt (was aber nicht alle abdecken könnte und die Sprachbarriere im Umgang mit dem Personal nicht viel senkt), zweitens auch gezielt Leute mit unterschiedlichen sprachlichen Hintergründen anstellt um da hoffentlich etwas beizukommen und drittens es leichter und attraktiver macht, Deutsch zu lernen (was aber nochmal zwei komplexe Probleme sind, die ich hier nicht kleinreden will).

Ich fürchte nur, dass diese Methoden in so manchen Gefilden nicht gut ankämen... Kann mir schon die Schimpftiraden ausdenken, was denn das Gekrakel auf dem Schild soll, dass die beiden da doch eh nur über die Deutschen ablästern würden und dass das doch deren Problem sei, wie sie Deutsch lernen. Bilinguale Angebote zur Immersion und Integration will man auf jeden Fall nicht subventionieren.

asking a little much of users to start direct dowloading apks or whatever to get their leftist shitposting app

I mean, if you're serious about ideology, you probably won't mind taking a few extra steps for it. If the status quo pisses you off, why not do something that's ultimately still free and only takes a little more time?

I mean, it's probably a difference between "proper", formal pronunciation (S C P) and informal chatting. So it's not wrong.

Doing it for the event would set a precedent. Next you know, they'll expect that to continue when it's over. How am I going to make them bend over backwards for customers and bear all kinds of abuse with an apologetic deference just so they don't risk their income? People might stop coming in to hurl insults at my employees while giving me money for the opportunity.

For us, it's an infrastructure problem that wouldn't be hard to solve, if people weren't so obstinate about it. Whatever solution you come up with for enabling us to charge our PiH, I'm pretty sure we've thought about it and got shot down by the local fossils, with the usual range of "concerns": Fire, expenses, ugly charging stations, just a fad among the ignorant youth...

Oh, and apparently a local progressive politician is bad because she's going all influencer and such. God forbid millennials do millennial things to reach millennial voters for millennial policies.

Maybe just high? In which case they probably shouldn't have access to a "broadcast my thoughts to the world" device.

I wonder how many actually want to, but can't. We sure tried arguing with a HOA that blocks all feasible options and a landlady that won't push the issue because she doesn't live here and couldn't give less of a fuck if she was paid to.

I also wonder how many would if it was easier and cheaper. Like, who'd want to pay for a charging station or walk ten minutes?

I imagine that kind of speculative figure is harder to pin down reliably though.

getting the regulation out before the problem happens is better than after

There's this weird effect where preventing a disaster is often invisible, sometimes looks detrimental or a waste of time; but responding to a problem and solving it is visible and will get you acclaim. That creates a cynical incentive to let a problem become visible before combating it so as to avoid the Kassandra effect where nobody believes you until it happens.

I too pledge not to put AI in your life!

Sold. I'm switching to you.

The image says "It is now safe to turn off your computer"

Well, the name "light-butcher" does fit someone serving a dark priest...

In this case, SCP is more or less a name on its own. Originally, it referred to the descriptions of how a particular anomaly is to be handled and treated (Standard Containment Procedures), then as the setting got formalised, it became both the name of the SCP-Foundation and a backronym for their motto (Secure, Contain, Protect), and for referring to the anomalies (generally pronounced Scip, with individual anomalies usually referred to by their procedures' number or some variation defined in it).

So if you're talking about, say, SCP-173, it really is just part of the name. Dereferencing it doesn't make much sense, since both the motto and the document don't really fit the object.

Sure, some people hate it. But for most, using it seems quite the no-brainer. Without that "some", the statement sounds too universal to be accurate.

Thanks for the added details!