Thats fine, I’d agree with that advice, though I dont think its a 100% never ever do this under any situation.

My sole point was that a young woman going on an ill advised date should not be mixed up with children being raped, which is what you were doing by calling someone going on a date with an 18 year old a pedo. That would apply if the man in question was 28 or 68.

You may be shocked to learn that there are positions available between loving the idea of your adult daughter going on a date with someone 10 years older than her and screaming “pedo!” at them.

The part where you call someone going on a date with an 18 year old a paedophile.

Can we please not demean the horrors of child sexual abuse by conflating it with two concenting adults going on a date, even if you find the age gap icky.

I actually used this same example further up. Yes the GWOT made some terrible legislation that has done real damage, but it wasnt a slippery slope. They didnt make laws a little bit invasive but generally ok before slowly nudging it further until it got to the point where it was able to be used for ill. They went in hard and fast with abusable legislation which could be criticised for what it actually was, not what it would lead to in further legislation down the line (and it was criticised at the time).

I know its a metaphor, but you can come up with any metaphor you want its still just speculation based on nothing. It’s precicily the same argument that conservatives made about gay marriage: this is just the thin end of the wedge, it starts with allowing people to marry people of the same sex and then they’ll move on to incest and bestiality.

Its a crap argument, if you want to oppose something show how this wither makes things worse or how it makes worse things easier to happen in the future. A good example would be the freedom restricting legislation brought in after 9/11. Despite assurances at the time that it would just be used against “terrorists” there was nothing in it to garuntee that, at you could make the argument that the legislation with no further changes could be used to do harm. Lo and behold it was.

Just pointing at something and saying “slipperly slope” or “boiling the frog” is not an argument against something unless you can show how it makes the next step easier, and I havent seen any actually thought through argument how this does make mandatory identification easier.

So exactly the same argument, while referencing an experiment where the frogs did jump out of the boiling water unless they were lobotomised. Very convincing.

Parents of current 8-18 year olds are gen X and millenials, who every survey shows are (on average) significantly more tech literate than gen Z and Alpha.

Nice to see lots of downvotes for stating factually correct statements while the parent post is literally all conjecture based on “well they would do that wouldnt they?” but is upvoted.

If they were planning on doing ID verification for this why would they take this half step? It doesnt make it easier for them down the road, if anything it makes it harder as there’s the ability to say “but we already have that”. If the plan was to mandate face ID why wouldnt they just go straight for that like the UK and Australia have for porn?

I wouldnt read too much into the lower scores, they include some absolutely tiny models. The one 70% lower than the top score at 24% correct is a 1B model from 2024. Honestly that it can do any information retrival from a 32k context is impressive.

Thats not what the current OS-level age gating is though. Its literally pick what age the account user is on account creation. You could set yourself to be 120 and that would be valid.

Generalplan Ost was also designed to do to eastern Europe what the USA did with clearing natives out of the “west”.

I’m not saying its anything other than morally repugnant, obviously, but in the example of a password with billions or trillions of combinations and where you can check the answers given torture pretty obviously is better than guessing.

That’s not a scenario that is ever likely to come up, and wouldn’t be justifiable even if it did, but pretending it wouldnt be effective is ridiculous.

Torture can be a useful way of extracting information if you have a way to instantly verify it, which actually makes it a good analogy to LLMs. If I want to know the password to your laptop and torture you until you give me the correct password and I log in then that works.

Im not misunderstanding at all, but do you really think governments make multi-billion dollar purchaces without having technical experts go over things with a fine tooth comb. Again if only one customer nation, of which there are dozens, found something like this or if it was ever used, it would wipe out the entire export market for US high tech weapons, why would they do that when they have effective soft power ways of achiving the same thing?

Do you honestly think that all the countries buying these planes havent inspected them? Even if they were incredibly well disguised the chance of them being discovered would essentially stop the US from selling military hardware abroad again as it would be hard proof that they couldnt be trusted.

There is no reason to do that when, as others have pointed out, they can just restrict access to parts, updates and mission planning software.

But also:

Google is still up 100% from where it was may last year, even taking that drop into account.