If you knew this for fact you'd have something to corroborate, is this just vibes? Job loss numbers are published, at the very lowest end the estimates are 50k across 2025 in the US alone. I don't see any evidence RLHF is creating livelihoods at the rate AI is destroying them.

Reminder that even in the scenario that constituents 100% support or 100% reject a policy, their opinions hold almost no statistical sway to their elected representative. It's actually worse than a coin flip.

It's only when you restrict your constituent demographic to just those in the top 10% of wealth (...like a professor in college for example...) that suddenly their voting decisions align to constituent opinions.

Look up "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", this has been known for some time.

So, yes RLHF is available right now, for people with specific backgrounds. That RLHF work is temporary and it's going to make hundreds of thousands of people redundant. The RLHF work is actually job-negative, it is work which will later deprive others of a way to make a living.

Once that training work dries up, what happens to the people who were doing the job which AI now does? How do they pay rent? How do they feed and clothe themselves? What answers do any AI proponant actually have for this, or is the intention that every person shuts the critical thinking part of their brain off and trusts the computer will come up with something?

This assumes that AI capable of writing passable code is also capable of a passable review. It also assumes that you save any time by trusting that review, if it missed something wrong then it's often actually more effort to go back and fix than it would've been to just read it yourself the first time.

I would like to state for the record that the strategy to swap em-dashes into double-hyphens between the generation and posting step is probably not enough transformation to disguise this behaviour. Whoever is running this clawdbot or whatever it is should really be putting that information on the account page.

* Countless (they literally didn't bother to count) deaths caused because she refused to release accurate guidance during the height of the HIV epidemic, she didn't want the public knowing about sexual acts she disapproved of.

* Countless (again) STDs, rape, child abuse and suicide cases because she made it illegal for teachers to inform nor support students about LGBTQ issues. The average LGBTQ teenager who finished school before 2003 received ZERO sexual education catered to their actual needs, and ZERO support for the bullying they would be receiving.

I think in general people demonise her rightly, because in 2026 she would be seen as a vicious monster of a person. It is not enough to just be really great for free trade in the current era, we are beyond the point that we have to settle for unhinged backwards politics just for that.

> If that is still too heavy, what could I do to make it better?

I haven't picked it up yet to see whether it's complex enough to really need it but it has the same pain point a few priors did--being yet another service which I must configure via the browser and so it has to run an entire frontend for doing that rather than being able to do config files.

This is actually you doing it again, lying-via-hyperbole. This didn't happen routinely (it was high profile enough to get news stories the few times it did) and it was pretty specifically white supremacist groups.

> You happened to enjoy the old smell.

If you approach conversation with a little more honesty yourself you might not just fall into the assumption other people are partisan.

A decade ago you could quickly check the blue mark and know that the account most likely belonged to the person it was labelled for. The people who had a mark when they shoudn't have were by far the minority, and mistakes were the exception.

In 2026 a blue checkmark actually means the account is far more likely to be fake, more likely to be lying and more likely to be engagement trolling. There's no guarantee it even belongs to a human person. The platform gives the account holder money if they can convince you to click spam links!

It's not even close to having the same value now as it did then.

When this doesn't happen what do you do?

We ended up just doing a discord screen share, which evaded all the tunnelling/transcoding/etc issues which made us give up on WebRTC.

The majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online didn't get consulted, the developers put anti-cheat in after the audience was already entrenched. The players didn't "decide" anything, Riot games decided it in like 2020 and the players have middling to negative feelings about it. You weren't talking about Riot Games? Well you said "majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online" and that's Riot Games, so yes you were.

Are you based in a more rural area? That might account for why the selection is small where you are.

This is a myth. You could be confusing the story of the factory workers who had popcorn lung, or you may be thinking of the bootleg marijuana carts which had vitamin E in the mix, in either case the story is wrong and also about a decade out of date.

Vapes do not cause popcorn lung.

https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/ready-to-quit-...