The first example I saw was making a shopping list for school for pick up.
Do the same thing for recipes and buying groceries.
Or "order me take out from a bunch of places I haven't been that you think I'd like." The AI can ask follow up questions and see your ratings.
"Make a music playlist for my daughter when she enters the car based on the conversation last month. I remember vaguely her mentioning what she liked"
These are things that 100% people want AI to do -- imagine if you had a personal assistant, is something people have asked for since forever.
Now, I kind of agree on the minimal use compared to business, because in business everything has always been highly integrated. That said, that's changing rapidly.
I don’t know, I am not sure I’ve ever felt like I’ve needed a personal assistant in the way you’ve described. None of these tasks seem hard and some seem entirely unnecessary.
The music playlist example in particular seems highly unrealistic or just bound to be a meaningless interaction. I’m making a playlist for my daughter based on a conversation that I forgot? If I forgot the content of the conversation then why am I even trying to salvage that into something meaningful?
“I made you this playlist based on a conversation I forgot, but I asked the AI to creep through our conversation recording so that it looks like I was listening to you!”
“Oh, thanks I guess, I like Heartbreaker by Led Zeppelin, not the Rolling Stones.”
Literally every campaign promise he's went back on. So, "Saying that maybe this is actually what it means to be an American could hold some truth" I don't really think is accurate lol
I know a lot of folks who voted for the man, almost all of them would love for a competent alternative. Unfortunately, in the last election, neither were competent, so a lot of it was a coin toss.
Ah this is true too (seeing as I didn’t vote for him, it doesn’t bother me that he’s done the opposite of his campaign promises).
But as for competent alternatives during last election, would think a young, vibrant, thoughtful Kamala Harris would have done a better job - Still, if I’m being honest, I was not a big fan of hers even though I would have voted for her (was out of state during the last election and voting got too complicated). So, I can understand if this turned off voters.
… although, if you were referring to Biden, then yeah, truly neither were competent choices.
He basically covers a different historic dish every week ranging from the oldest recorded dishes to cafeteria food from 1990; or what they served on the Titanic, etc.
Judges at this level often do things like this, and given it was brought in California likely the next level would also block the administration. That said, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that the executive branch has broad and the only authority to designate supply chain risk. That said, they do need to justify it, not sure they did it well enough here, but this is far from an impartial judge.
Also, judges are political appointees -- This one has ruled against the Trump administration repeatedly and it's why this case was brought here. She was appointed by Joe Biden, was born/lives/works in the Bay Area and has a track record.
The trump administration has a long track record of doing illegal things that were struck down in countless courts across the country, so the more likely scenario is that this is yet another mark on that record. This isn't even the first one this week.
As for your legal arguments, it doesn't seem like they are currently correct, but I guess things can always change.
This would likely be overturned if the federal government needs to push it. At the time Anthropic was saying publicly that they oppose certain actions and their model is restricted in certain ways. The executive branch viewed that as a risk and has the ultimate say over it's vendors, regardless of the judges ruling. The supreme court has been pretty clear on this.
This is also a reminder that, contrary to popular understanding, judges are indeed political appointees. This one was appointed by Joe Biden, works in the Bay Area and definitely has a political bias in both the track record and in activism.
The truth is once systems like this are implemented they change the dynamics of the study and as such could hurting lives.
As a simple example, the biggest cost to the healthcare system in the US is dialysis. Many of those folks already have health issues, and by both dialysis and for all the issues that caused the need for dialysis in the first place is a massive strain. The direct cost of dialysis is $33B annually [1], but indirectly is probably at least another doubling.
Further, the way the government has imposted monopolies in the space already has caused costs to balloon. While making it "universal" could mean the government gets control, and can limit the explosion. It can also could result in weird incentives like Canada, where they're promoting MAID.
After reading the story, it seems like lack of training. I think training should assume GPS goes out (which it does), in this case they didn’t pull up when they saw “lights going out” as a mountain became between them and the airfield.
Air traffic control have a very specific remit and it isn't as comprehensive as people assume. You can have "no service", "radar service" and "full service" and what they will advise you about is limited, usually, to spacing or procedural errors like "you should be less than 220 knots".
A controller who has the capacity to spot something that seems off like a wrong heading or altitude might ask the plane if they are OK, but unless they are deviating from a flight plan in controlled airspace, they are more likely to assume VFR and pilot knows best.
> My guess is that, in the US, the right will cynically adopt manipulation to great effect and the left will take a moral stand against shady practices and lose elections.
I think that statement may itself highlight how prevalent manipulation is.
I fully anticipate all groups to continue maximal manipulation they can. One thing with LLMs is that it'll be a far less unified view, so a "divide and conquer" strategy is what I anticipate.
In US politics, the right is far, far better at winning elections than the left. This isn’t about personal preference. It’s objective political science.
Look at the most contentious issues in the US: abortion, climate change, taxing the wealthy, gun control, Affordable Healthcare Act.
The Democratic Party platform is aligned with national polling on every one. Every one of those issues has >60% support with voters and the Republican Party has blocked them all.
> Democratic Party platform is aligned with national polling on every one.
It depends on the pollster and where you're polling. I guarantee you rural Tennessee will not agree with downtown Washington DC on any of these issues. In contrast, rural California will likely agree with rural Tennessee. It's not as cut and dry as a homogeneous national poll of 2500 people. Every state, city, county are different. That's why there are federal, state, city, and county governments.
For instance, Abortions are legal nationally. States can individually decide how, or if, they wish to restrict it. This is as the constitution intends under the 10th amendment:
> powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.
This allows for democracy to take place at the local level, rather than having particular regions thousands of miles away from each other ultimately oppress the other.
To the point on LLMs, I think it's abundantly clear they will be used to propagandize and similar to social media will lock people in a bubble without alternative opinions. It'll be the worst of both worlds, the question is who's the puppet master. At some point soon, I imagine it'll be the AI.
I don't know what distance has to do with it. I would probably be voted out of existence by my town, if the same constitution hadn't convinced them that they have no right. Independence Hall is remote in space and the events still more in time.
The pretense of Dobbs is that laws against abortion are like laws prohibiting medical marijuana or setting speed limits. This contradicts the purpose of laws against abortion and the actual language of most of them. It was obviously a desperate decision, irrespective of the truth about abortion
So we need to "prohibit to the states" the power to enforce medical procedures (or the prohibition of a medical procedure) on individuals.
Which amendment protects someone's bodily autonomy or medical treatment from interference by the states?
If the Federal Congress passed a law providing that abortions are legal on demand up to the 22 week of gestation, after which it would require the corroboration of two doctors, would that stand, or would it be struck down by SCOTUS?
Same for legalization of marijuana, and many other "social" issues.
None of those are single issues, and the political fault lines are in the sub-issues. For example, while most Americans support "gun control," only 20% of Americans support a ban on handguns: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx. That figure has been trending steadily downward--from 38% in 1999 to 20% in 2024. That makes it much easier for Republicans to hold the line on that issue: portray all gun control efforts as a step towards confiscating handguns. That's hard for Democrats to defend against because most of the candidates, staffers, etc., who actually run the party probably are in that 20% who wants to ban handguns. That's simply logical, because handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of homicides committed with guns. It makes very little sense to have "gun control" without banning handguns.
The same thing for "taxing the wealthy." 59% of Americans think their own taxes are too high: https://news.gallup.com/poll/707951/americans-tax-views-rema.... And the difference isn't as big between parties as you think--49% of Democrats think their taxes are too high. So Democrats are in a position where they have to advocate for raising taxes on "the wealthy," without scaring any of their own voters into thinking that includes them.
Even a blind squirrel could find these nuts. Apart from that, republicans are ridiculously inept. For example, 2024 was the first time they spent real money trying to go after immigrant voters and minorities, and they made huge gains. But the on-the-ground operation disappeared after the election. Meanwhile, democrats are in these minority neighborhoods 365 days a year pushing their message.
> Apart from that, republicans are ridiculously inept.
They're not. They're really not. They're incredibly capable and are currently executing long term plans successfully, one after another. This goes all the way back to Regan and the disenfranchisement of education. They know exactly what they're doing to erode democracy.
Calling them inept is dangerously stupid at best, and at worst is just right wing propaganda to try and lull people into a false comfort and not act.
There's no "long term plans." It just seems that way because republicans are relatively ideologically homogenous, so it seems like there's much more top-down and long-term planning than there is.
Democrats, by contrast, have much more permanent political infrastructure. At the top law schools, for example, there's probably 10x as many liberal organizations as conservative ones. Democrats enjoy politics, so they are always out there organizing and engaging. Meanwhile, Republicans dislike the institutions through which politics is done, and so they gear up once every four years and then go back to their day jobs. Among the sort of more educated people who actually run the parties and serve as line staffers, republicans also self-select into private sector jobs, and out of public sector or political work.
Most importantly, putatively neutral institutions are de-facto aligned with democrats (because the professional class that runs these institutions is overwhelmingly democrats). Conservatives might have Fed Soc, but liberals own the ABA. Virtually every legal organization that isn’t expressly conservative or highly niche is de facto liberal and participates in support of democratic policies.
That presupposes that the left in the US wants to do the right thing. Something like government run grocery stores is not clearly correct and there is very little evidence supporting that it will work well yet it is a very popular leftist policy in New York.
Based on zero evidence. It’s very easy for a government to step in as a participant, ruin the profitability of a sector in an area, and offer a worse service.
They have no profit requirement or even revenue neutral requirement. So they can just operate poorly at a loss and still wreck other businesses because people will put up with breadlines to get bread for ultra cheap.
The general thing to watch out for with all of these “surely it can’t be evil to do nice thing X” is suicidal empathy. It can seem correct to your gut on the surface while it’s extremely destructive in the long term despite participants wanting to destroy something as an explicit goal.
Bad economic policy is subtly "evil", by way of allocating finite resources inefficiently. Usually this is unintentionally done by not appropriately taking second, third, ..., nth order effects into account.
They destroy grocery stores that offer variety in every neighborhood they operate in. They offer worse service and people put up with it because the rest of New York is subsidizing them through taxes.
The margins for groceries are objectively thin. The only way to provide food at lower prices is to provide a worse good or service, eg. less variety, less quality, less availability, etc. You will see all of these outcomes in NYC, if anyone even accepts the bids to begin with.
It's harder to convince people to all agree on the same, different from the norm, thing.
If you've got 5 people in a car and you play ABBA in every road trip, then one day you suggest to change, the problem is not in being okay with "something else", but on agreeing what that other thing should be, set against the already known thing.
That's why there's so much infighting in the left.
(Less so if others are exculpatory. Which is not the case here. A known false positive is not conclusive proof, but neither does it explicitly clear a source.)
They already told you clearly, so it sounds like you're trying to browbeat them with a fallacy of equivocation over the scope of "it".
These things are not equivalent:
1. A biological test for a parasite in a sample of equipment/material from the factory. (Claimed as false-positive.)
2. The analysis of the supply-chain for the food that sickened people which led to that facility as a common factor. (Presumably still accurate.)
___________
To use a criminal-investigation metaphor: Suppose a dead woman is found covered in knife wounds, and the circumstantial evidence leads to one Knifey McStabberson, since he (A) previously dated the woman and (B) sent a death-threat once via text-message, and (C) has a collection of hundreds of suitably-sized knives. Investigators notice one that looks bloody, and test it... It's her blood! Wait, oops, no, false-positive, it was something else.
What is your takeaway from the story so far? Is it that Knifey McStabberson himself is "a false-positive" and obviously totally innocent... or is it that it would be a good idea to check more of the knives scattered around his house and in his car?
Meh, I don't see how I could make anything worse, with how they were featured in Leave it to Cleaver, and recently dissed in that song by the Full-Tang Clan.
"That $1 million donation came six days after the FDA announced plans to delay the enforcement of a "food traceability rule" that would affect fresh fruits and vegetables, among other products, until 2028. The rule is unrelated to the inspection of fresh produce — it requires companies to track products at seven different key points in the supply chain to better prevent foodborne illness outbreaks."
It’s not worth much because the take away from this is you can call and pay to have heinous crimes pushed under the rug. It’s simple corruption, and devastating.
This is the most upsetting thing about everything that is happening. Like, sure I have plenty of criticisms about the FDA, but by and large, I thought the body was slowly working in the direction of the public good.
Once you destroy that trust, every single announcement becomes suspect. You no longer have anything you can believe.
And if you don't think the Republican's will use this distrust to their advantage, well, I have a bridge to sell you. It's a very common tactic by them: create a problem that never existed, then wine about said problem.
It’s so unbelievably destructive. We had a kid recently and I was looking up vaccine research. Do we have to prod the kid with the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth? I looked it up and promptly said, “well, CDC actually just came out with a thing that says it’s optional.” Wife turned to me and said, uh yeah, and who is the new director of the HHS now? Looked it up, and I come to find that many scientists were opposed to the decision to make it optional.
Yep, now I’ll be second guessing everything I read from the CDC. Good news though, I can ask a fucking AI Chatbot what to do. As a normal person with basic civic values this shit makes me so mad. It’s beyond disgusting. The gates of Hell are wide open for these people.
Yeah guess in hindsight that didn’t read as clear as it should have.
The chat bot is only even correct because of obvious, authoritative, trustworthy sources like the CDC. Makes it even more enraging to see bot tech makers meeting with the destroyers of truth.
This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?
> This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it?
At this point they've lied enough that the assumption should just always be "They're probably lying again. I need more evidence / facts / details if this is a thing I care about at all." Honestly though, I'm at a point where I simply won't trust much anything anymore without seeing / hearing more (provably true) facts first. Lying / deceit has just become far too common / accepted / normalized these days.
During the COVID pandemic situations we’re evolving quickly and the admin admitted they were wrong previously or had updated their views based on new information.
If you ask this admin about their obviously incorrect or fallacious statements their response is to call you a nasty person or piggy and then double down on the lies.
It was very possible at the beginning of COVID that it was an airborne virus. However the CDC proclaimed that there was no evidence, therefore no one should wear masks.
>In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more.
There was also the messaging that the vaccine did not cause myocarditis.
>This obvious error was compounded weeks later during a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee met to discuss what we knew and did not know about heart inflammation, or myocarditis, that had been linked to mRNA vaccination, and most notable in young men who received the vaccine.
I agree that the current administration is bad but I can't call it worse because the prior administration worked to illegally censor it's critics.
The administrative agencies response to the pandemic was very telling, there were multiple large conversations here with lots of comments about how we were being lied to.
>> FDA says...
>This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?
The fact of the matter is that both sets of officials lied.
Fauci only admitted to lying when he was brought in front of congress and there was a chance they were going to prosecute him if he lied to them.
We will see what this admin does if they ever get brought up to task.
Fauci thought his intentions were noble.
RFK Jr. believes the same I am sure.
Doesn't make either of them right, understanding why the other side is/was upset is the first step to fixing the problem.
If you can't see the equivalence between saying don't trust the government because it's lying and don't trust the government because it's lying there is nothing that will convince you.
> This is the same argument that the anti-vaxers had about the COVID vaccine.
It’s not the same argument because one group is a true believer who will never admit fault. The other isnt. There is no equivalence to people who believe in anti vaxx ideology and people who don’t believe in RFK jr.
Yes it is because the argument is that you can't trust the government because they lied.
>Comments on YouTube videos during the COVID-19 pandemic clustered similarly around "concerns about side-effects, effectiveness, and lack of trust in corporations and government".
I don't share the same believes as anti-vaxers but I do believe that their cause was bolster by the government deliberately lying.
In the very early days of COVID, there were numerous studies that backed up the government position that COVID was not spread via airborne route.
>Airborne transmission, either by droplets (route 3) or by aerosol (route 4), contributes less than 1% of the total viruses needed to cause an infection....This finding is consistent with studies that sampled the air where symptomatic COVID-19 patients reside and found that all collected samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2
But earlier it even states:
>Due to the fact that most of these estimates were made in countries that lead a public health policy of immediate isolation of cases upon symptoms’ onset, these estimates represent the effect of pre-symptomatic carrier transmission. In fact, pre-symptomatic transmission was recently referred to as the Achilles’ heel of COVID-19 pandemic control, as symptom-based detection of infection is less effective in comparison to the control of the SARS epidemic in 2003
So we know that pre-symptomatic transmission is the primary driver but claim it's not airborne because we sampled air of symptomatic patients.
This was the quality of the "Science" that we were supposed to believe.
When you have the scientific establishment publishing what amounts to bullshit to back up the lies of government how can you trust it in the future?
Andrew Wakefield study is discredited, I am not aware of any others but there may be.
I doubt that I am going to change your mind that the argument you presented is the same as anti-vaxers. But my advice remains the same, become a domain expert or be close friends with one you can trust.
I have several family member in the medical field, when the push for adolescent vaccine began some of them quietly cautioned me about the risks that were being downplayed. I read through the studies and made my own decision. Just as I made my own decision about wearing a mask when the government was telling me it increased my risk of infection.
Do the same thing for recipes and buying groceries.
Or "order me take out from a bunch of places I haven't been that you think I'd like." The AI can ask follow up questions and see your ratings.
"Make a music playlist for my daughter when she enters the car based on the conversation last month. I remember vaguely her mentioning what she liked"
These are things that 100% people want AI to do -- imagine if you had a personal assistant, is something people have asked for since forever.
Now, I kind of agree on the minimal use compared to business, because in business everything has always been highly integrated. That said, that's changing rapidly.