I feel the same as you, and after reading the article, it doesn't really prove the strong claims in the title. At least not as a factual conclusion. There is corelation, but the article points out that it is not causation.

“It’s unclear, based on these data, whether AI use is contributing to poor mental health and well-being, or whether students who are already in distress in certain ways are more likely to turn to AI,” Anderson said.

It's ironic in a way, since one of the dangerous things that drives people to AI is how it confirms a person's bias.

Surprised Boebert Face

That's why the #1 strategy of the GOP is voter supression. The easier voting becomes, the more they lose.

Cancelled that shit back when they became a platform for right wing grifters.

When I was a teen I put on a song I liked on repeat and went to sleep to it. When I woke up, it sounded slighly different. Slightly off. It sucked because I really liked that song but my brain wasn't having it. It still feels off today, more than 2 decades later.

Sam utilizes 100% of his own asshole, since he talks out of it.

It's interesting since 0004 is technically just as random as any other lock combination on paper. If you choose a random number between 0000 and 9999, every number has the same chance.

Same with the private key of 4. It was still 47 bytes of 0 and one byte of 4 as storage for P-384.

So if you randomly tested keys, you would take as long to find it on average as any other key.

The problem is that, similar to cracking a number lock, one of the things to check first is weak patterns. This means people on a number lock would start at 0000 and turn one dial. Simlar things happened with the certificates afaik. Someone checked if those certs keys were any low integer and indeed they were.

I don't think the intention is to take the mechanics of how and why exactly they explode at face value. It's interesting to theorize, but the comic points out that "no one knows why". If it's some supernatural power, it could be argued that they'd be able to discern between normal value and malicious intent.

Would still make an intersting thought experiment to come up with some set of rules of explosion that is actually air tight.

Well, if it would only be the articles of incorporation deciding on the donations, it wouldnt be a problem.

It's even worse in that they are apparently only people when it comes to donations. When the company does something criminal, they are suddenly entities that cannot possibly be punished beyond a fine for less than the crime committed.

I'm the polar opposite with my brain telling me to say something, but I keep quiet

It's essentially by design. To keep AI from destabilizing, the way AI is tuned is to essentially 'go the same safe way' on similar prompts. LLM models are essentially a giant field of weights for chains of tokens. Prompts are turned into tokens and the closest result is the output. The more room you give it to vary, the more different styles and variation it can express with a propmpt, but it raises the chance of destabilizing the ouput, producing things like additional fingers or complete garbage. It's tuned to walk the same way to produce something we perceive as "passable" but it comes at the cost of taking away variation, which is why AI art/writing will consistenly converge towards the same narrow style set.

(This explanation is not super accurate. I just tried to convey the jist of it)