Questioned about it, he's asking his rig why it did something and quotes verbatim from the generated text. Then when a Wikipedian asks how the bot logged in, berates them how it's all ephemeral code and he could only guess.

If you want a glimpse into the mindset, read this interview: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...

The overall attitude is that this was going to happen anyway and we should feel lucky he's so helpful. I rather agree with another commenter here that this was "pissing in the fountain". Whatever pure motivations there may have been, cleanup was left to others.

Now when I meet somebody through the service, and we think it's serious, we can release that money. And we can check whether the other did too!

Sure there will still be profiles with people that don't pledge, because they're just testing the waters, or poor, or scammers. Whatever. Point is I can send a signal that at some point I want to be done with the service, and then pay them for that.

In the current volatile environment, the API prices are more of a baseline where we can assume it can't be much cheaper to operate these models.

The problem with e-voting is that it is much harder to validate. My paper ballot rests at a community building where it will be counted on the day of the vote. I can understand the process from start to finish in physical terms. Throw in a USB stick and anything could happen. It is possible we will never know what went wrong here.

I do wonder whether "semantic ablation" is the right term for what is going on. Ablation I think fits because it refers to the removal of layers. And yes they are semantic layers. But ablation refers to the process, not the result. So on its own shortening "ablation of semantic layers" to "semantic ablation" is problematic. It sounds like semantics are used for ablation. "Semantically streamlined" could capture the intended meaning but of course streamlining has a positive ring to it, where ablation sounds problematic as it should. I guess "semantic fusiform" is too obscure :-)

I heard of countries where parents are fond of having firearms around.

Whoa that's a lot to unpack. Most pressingly, why do you need to point out that judges are not "at the top"? They perform a duty with a lot of responsibility. And that is that. No, where I live judges don't get appointed by "alphas".

> Not everyone can be at the top of the bell curve.

This is me nitpicking and I understand you mean to say that "the alphas" are special. But "at the top of the bell curve" is where everyone is! The freaks are found down in the tails. Exceptional people will be in the middle with everybody else on most metrics that show a normal distribution.

I'd say you'll have to look at metrics that show a not-normal distribution to cluster "the alphas" together. But then I don't really know how "being alpha" is defined. So maybe there is a metric where humans distribute in a bell curve and "the alphas" crowd out one side of it? Got an example?

> It's not a coincidence that the arguments that are free to wander around the sentence are the ones that bear explicit markings of the nature of their relationship to the verb.

The thrust was that Turkish allows more liberties than other languages. Yes that is due to the Turkish language having more strict markings. What are we disagreeing about?