I love my country quite literally to death. Death plays a strong role in the concept of freedom in American philosophy: Give me liberty, or give me death (yes, I know the real context of this quote), etc.

And so when my government wants to destroy my country, its land and its people, divide us, commodify us and our life experiences, and also export this kind of systematic industrial exploitation across the world, through colonies and coups and political assassinations; yeah, I hate that government a lot. I hate it to death. The American government has been an enemy to America, and an enemy to Americans. Since the beginning, with our treatment of the natives.

You'd do well to separate the land, people and government of a nation; confusing them only further serves State propaganda. We force children to say a pledge to our country in school, but it's really to our government. It's political brainwashing. I have refused to say the pledge since becoming politically aware enough around age 7. I cannot tersely express the amount of institutional abuse I suffered for this position. Teachers would ostracize me, bully me, punish me, attempt to physically force me to say it, write me up for detention, get my guardians to abuse me at home over it, etc. Like I said, the American government is a psyop.

Next time you start to generalize about "Americans" exhibiting some kind of unified belief or behavior, just stop and think about how stupid that is.

Well-designed interfaces enforce decoupling where it matters most. And believe it or not, you can do review passes after an LLM writes code, to catch bugs, security issues, bad architecture, reduce complexity, etc.

> Have you heard of the slippery slope? A cornerstone of American political philosophy?

> Arguments like this one are why the authoritarian ratchet continues to turn unimpeded over time.

Compelling any speech or written code is a violation of our rights as recognized by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

All knowledge is ultimately fallible, but ignoring or not being able to appreciate the high statistical likelihood of this article being LLM edited/generated doesn't change reality.

You're asking me to share my expertise with you so that you can understand, but your antagonistic overtones make it not feel worth the time and effort. Other readers have also pointed out that it has characteristic idiosyncrasies. Feel free to look into it yourself, but it would also be wise to learn to defer these kinds of attacks until you have all the information.

You claimed "this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated" is "poor form", attacking the parent commenter by claiming they are lying about the nature of the content. However, multiple people have pointed out the clear signs which you missed, and the consensus is that you were wrong. Now you suddenly don't care about this point, and have introduced a new argument instead.

"From my point of view, all you've done is said a lot of nonsense and fabricated a convoluted explanation for why you think the text is bad"

What a bad-faith response. Categorically dismissive, vague, antagonistic and ultimately failing to critically engage with anything I said.

And your provided "slippery slope argument" is just a straw man argument. No one in this thread made that argument. The slippery slope is the authoritarian ratchet.

If you want to restrict your kid's access to the internet, install software that does that. I think in 2026, when kids have personal devices, key word "personal", meaning there is an expected level of privacy we should respect, effective insulation against the bad parts of the internet will not be achieved through software. Meanwhile, this legislation will be used to prevent children from turning into organized free thinkers.