riskable

Yes! Because cyber bullying can only happen on platforms that are designed specifically for adults. By banning children from social networks, we will have completely eliminated the problem and totally not at all created much worse problems like potentially leaking the identities of millions of people and destroying the entire concept of privacy.

(Nods head vigorously)

https://theforestscout.com/40129/in-our-opinion/how-a-childrens-game-turned-into-an-outlet-for-bullying/

When my kids were young, but old enough that they may inadvertently stumble upon porn, I told them the truth. The truth that so few explain to their children. The truth that many adults don't understand and many more completely forget.

Porn is fake.

It's not real. The sounds? Acting. The breasts? Those are fake too. The perfect skin? Makeup (or airbrush).

Even "amateur" porn is fake! As soon as someone agrees to be filmed having sex it ceases to be real.

Also, let me get this straight: Your greatest fear from children being exposed to porn is they might begin to accept mysogyny‽ As in, you think porn is the most likely place kids will be exposed to it and somehow just nod their heads‽ "Oh wow, that's totally sexist! But they're having sex so it must be OK. I'll try to be like that!" (Child nods head).

Or perhaps you think kids will be viewing so much porn—specifically, the mysogynistic kind—that it will somehow carve mysogyny into their minds?

This is so much like the beliefs of conservatives that try to ban books that mention LGBTQ people. Stop and think for a moment: How much porn did you view as a kid? How did that impact your life?

I seriously doubt it changed much. Unless, of course, you were reading Playboy for the articles.

Oooh! Maybe they'll finally invent an actual reason to use it.

Just think: Without legislation like this, kids will be able to see people having sex! Thus, ending their lives. Not so different from staring into the eyes of Medusa!

The amount of children exposed to sex that have died—or suffered worse consequences like early onset conservatism—may have been zero so far but the dangers are clear! We must skip right over parental involvement in child rearing and go straight to the source of the problem: Computers.

Computers have been giving everyone access to too much information for too long! We must restrict it! The first step is to get an implementation that actually works to censor information—to save the children (wink wink)—then later, we will have the tools necessary to censor whatever we want!

When glorious dictator decides that information about trans-genic mice must be erased from the Internet, we shall have the power to do so!

My Plott Hound knows this tune. It's the song of her people.

Monarchies are rotten. The entire concept!

With this upgrade, he can now log in to work!

Anything related to conservative ideology better be banned, then!

The Giving Tree

The problem is it's an arms race! Stop treating LLMs like their existence is the problem and start viewing it via the lens of war:

The enemy has lots of badly-behaving LLMs! Marketers, scammers, and lazy management are equipped with Big AI brand LLMzookas that are sending hallucinations our way!

Captain: "So what do we do about it?"

Soldier: "Captain, there's FOSS LLMs that we can deploy! We can use them to defeat the enemy's bullshit slingers! They can be used to search the web on our behalf to filter out hallucinations and advertisements disguised as content! We can set them up to monitor enemy deployments and analyze intelligence to find the truth and stop propaganda in its tracks!"

Captain: "...but can FOSS AI generate boobs‽"

Soldier: "Sir, FOSS has already surpassed commercial AI in that front of the war."

Captain: "We need to deploy FOSS AI ASAP!"

Define, "hacked." I ask because there's degrees to this sort of thing.

Example 1: Hacker finds SQL injection vulnerability and uses it to change his bill after booking.

Example 2: "Hacker" changes the HTML form that submits his booking by changing a read-only value to read-write and adjusts the price to $1.

The first one is actual hacking. The second? Come on! In that case the hotel accepted the booking with the reduced price. That's not really hacking, that's just a comedy of errors in judgement on behalf of the hotel.

The second example is like changing the price tag on something in a store to $0.01 and then having the clerk look at it and say, "well, that seems low but the price that says one cent, so..." 🤷

Brush the chips off before they go into the MRI then!