See, there are always two kinds of errors. In the case of voting, one kind is where you let someone vote who shouldn't, and the other is where you don't let someone vote who should. And when you try to decrease one, you increase the other, because you don't have a perfect system.

So, how much suppression of legitimate voters should we accept in order to decrease voter fraud? I think the answer should be "no more voters should be suppressed than there are fraudulent votes cast, and preferably fewer".

Well, how many fraudulent votes are cast? There is little evidence that it's a large problem. In the absence of such evidence, I do not thing that there should be large changes to try to eliminate the fraudulent votes that exist, because they are likely to cause more problems the other direction.

Note well: I do not approve of fraudulent votes. But even more I disapprove of creating a large problem to fix a small one.

But the definition I had in mind was the one in Wikipedia, "matches or surpasses human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks." Well, if it's going to do that, it can't be stupider than capable humans nearly as often as it is.

And, if the pope is doing his job, worries about whether what he says helps China are not supposed to be how he decides what to say or not to say. It may be one consideration, but it's not the only one or the top one.

But why would you care when an AI can just rewrite it? Yes, but can it rewrite it to a good architecture? Or just to a different one?

Does a good architecture make code easier for an AI to maintain? I don't know, but I think it's at least not proven that it doesn't.

But in China, the CCP literally determines which candidates can run for office. The TN GOP does not determine whether Democratic candidates can even run.

Still, you write those for the known possible obstacles. Having the state government change the ground rules may not have been one of your known possibles. So, yeah, I could see force majeure being at least possibly reasonable.

> they get to feel creative for possibly the first time ever.

They're experiencing what you experienced at 14. And, no offense, your Geocities site that you made at 14 was probably not very good.

Now, there is still a difference, because people had to deliberately go to your site, and what this guy is doing is more like polluting a commons. That is a problem. AI makes it much more of a problem, because it becomes much easier to spew lies (or just slop).

I think what's going to happen is that we're going to develop better slop senses (eventually). There will be a return of gatekeepers, because keeping slop and lies out will be more valuable than letting new things in.