I do agree, though, that a pattern of synchronized account activity actually suggests something more than a single example.

I have a degree in Journalism and now work in customer support. Occasionally, people accuse me of being an AI because of my writing style.

Thankfully, no one I report to internally wants me to simplify my English to prevent LLM accusations. The work I do requires deliberate use of language.

They are in my state (Washington), but more and more are creeping through online, and my state doesn't seem particularly interested in doing anything about it...

And of course, they ignore all the major sports sponsorships from these companies, which would otherwise make it impossible to air the most popular sporting events in the state now.

Love their nonsense excuse they they are trying to protect us from misuse of "superintelligence".

>“We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible. That said, superintelligence will raise novel safety concerns. We’ll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source.” -Mark Zuckerberg

Meta has shown us daily that they have no interest in protecting anything but their profits. They certainly don't intend to protect people from the harm their technology may do.

They just know that saying "this is profitable enough for us to keep it proprietary and restrict it to our own paid ecosystem" will make the enthusiasts running local Llama models mad at them.

>No, don't use it to fix your grammar, or for translations

Okay, I can understand even drawing the line at grammar correction, in that not all "correct" grammar is desirable or personal enough to convey certain ideas.

But not for translation? AI translation, in my experience, has proven to be more reliable than other forms of machine translation, and personally learning a new language every time I need to read something non-native to me isn't reasonable.

How exactly does the right to food "imply slavery"?

Where does the food come from that you have the right to?

Yeah, look at the state of our freedom of religion. Conservative Christians love to push the idea that religious freedom includes the right to legislate from scripture, but honestly, it feels like people should know better.

People tend to think that when you get the government involved with something you are passionate about, that passion will now influence the government. Still, the reality is that you're handing control over that passion to the government.

This is how a "Christian America" would play out. Whatever beliefs are held by those in power would be written into law, despite the actual opinions of America's Christians. The government would declare itself an authority over Christianity and would start telling churches how to operate.

This was already partially true in red states before marriage equality (and probably still true today, to some extent). Progressive churches that believed same-sex marriages were holy in the eyes of God were told by the state that they could not perform same sex marriages - in some cases, even barring a pure non-binding ceremony as a form of "attempted marital fraud".

If you are an American Christian and you care about your right to worship freely without government interference, you should cherish secularism. Enforcing the Bible as a matter of law means that interpretations of the Bible you disagree with will be enforced against you. Requiring prayer in schools will lead to vicious fights between teachers and parents over which prayers are the "correct" ones. Literally any piece of scripture you write into law will become controversial even amongst Christians. But still, people insist that their freedom would somehow be enhanced.

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that a Christian America would turn non-Christians, especially Muslims and Jews, into a lower class of citizens.

It is unfortunate that he current powers controlling all branches of our government are primarily interested in taking rights away, and that those who voted for it think that this is freedom.

I mean I'm a Christian and want a secular government but this current administration is the farthest thing from a Christian administration in the history of the United States. Donald Trump is like the first non practicing self identified Christian in US history.

By and large many issues in America today are due to have abandoned Christian norms on both ends of the political spectrum.

> Having only two choices isn't notably better, especially if both options are equally bad.

This is getting pointlessly non-specific. The world rarely has two equally bad choices and that description absolutely does not apply to american elections.

If I want pasta, and I can chose from 10k options, but none of which are pasta, is it really any different than if I had one option?

Yeah, that's still sexist. Was that your point, because it kinda feels like you're presenting this as a gotcha or something...