But unless you know the prompt, you don't fully know which choice the model faces. Surely a lot of coding space is wasted compensating for that uncertainty. Exotic prompts ("Use no more than five E's in four consecutive words anywhere in the text") seem like they will confuse the hell out of attempts to extract the bits from the output text alone.

As I said, these are people who went to some effort to try a novel vaccine. If they do that, I think it's unlikely that they are anti-vaxxers. Presumably they'd also know - or would be told - that the vaccine can't be expected to work on any post-Lyme symptoms you already have.

The author gave plenty of other reasons why someone might be stressed out by what's communicated at the airport.

The whole point is that airport staff (and especially leadership) are maybe not so great at "optimizing for the greater good" always.

It's the best argument to legalize them if you ask me. It's clearly a self-limiting problem - I think it's simply because of unpleasant experiences, but I suppose it's also possible that the life-changing experiences make them not need the drugs anymore.

I didn't say it was legal because it's common - as you say, psilocybe mushrooms are also common - but because it's so unpleasant it has low abuse potential.

But despite that, this mushroom is not a popular recreational drug. Much like amanita muscaria, which certain people insist must be great if used right, is common as dirt, and yet is so unpopular as a drug that it isn't even restricted.

By these same accounts, you'll get sick. It's unpleasant. Not even the most enthusiastic "psychonauts" seem to manage to take joy in this thing, little people or not.

The ideology, such as it is, doesn't have to explicitly say that capital should have political power. It merely says that it's a moral outrage to prevent the rich from spending their money however they choose.

But the ideology is secondary to capital anyway. If we let the rich get rich enough, that's strong incentive for inventing ideological justifications for it; after all to be friends with the powerful gives an easy life, and to be their enemy give a hard one.

"Money decisions" are also absolutely power decisions. The power concentration isn't even mainly in the decisions of the rich, but simply in that they are rich. You need to work building yachts rather than bake bread because the yacht buyers have so fabulously much more money to spare than the bread buyers. And the money they don't spend is even more powerful since it controls society's investments. Our society orbits around wealth, that's what capitalism is in practice.

But the alternative "overthrow power" is costly enough that we usually procrastinate.

The party doesn't actually need "core socialist values" to stay in charge. They could easily have adopted a Putin (or Napoleon, or Caesar) attitude of "I don't give a damn about the framework legitimizing my rule, as long as you acknowledge me as the boss".

I've seen some local groups taken over by ragebait slop, though. Ironically, not even right wing rage bait slop. As far as I can tell, it finally boiled over for the admin of the page, who was a fairly liberal guy in an extremely rural place, when a local museum found out he was anti-Trump and stopped collaborating with him on local history (maybe for fear of other's reactions). Since then he's strictly reposted rage material from other places/people on Facebook, much of it clearly low effort/AI generated.

I can't judge him, he lives there after all, and from this side of the ocean my political sympathies are definitively closer to him than to his enemies. Still :/

1. Academic ethics is the theoretical study of what you can get away with. (Law is the applied branch). Professors in ethics are not experts at being good, or knowing what is good, they're experts in how to get away with things. If you want an expert in being good, you need a saint, not an academic studying ethics. Saints are in short supply.

2. That said, ethics academics can still be decent. They don't have to be sanctimonious corporate shills . However, an "ethics expert" who hasn't threatened to quit and gone through with it at least once, should be assumed to be one.

I respect those who quit - or, at least, I respect them more. I wonder if it's more a reflection of the people, or of the state of the industry, that the list of (AI) ethics experts who have quit in protest is getting long.

The only reason they might succeed is that the surveillance industry would love to put it on edge devices instead.

I don't think this undermines what I wrote.