> LLM generated content often (perhaps by definition) seems acceptable to LLMs.
In my experience (albeit with non-coding questions), ChatGPT 5.2 is often quite eager to critique snippets of its own replies from previous conversations. And reasoning models can definitely find flaws in LLM-written code.
I'd argue that environmental regulations that impede building modern nuclear power plants to replace coal power plants are net harmful. Nuclear power safety has advanced a lot since Chernobyl.
For non-broken cryptographic hashes (e.g., SHA-256), the false-positive rate is negligible. Indeed, cryptographic hashes were designed so that even nation-state adversaries do not have the resources to generate two inputs that hash to the same value.
It's the other way around: with the new change, the blockee will be able to see (but not reply to) the blocker's posts, but the blockee's posts will still be hidden from the blocker.
ChatGPT is arguably a general intelligence, but it hasn't escaped AFAIK -- it's still contained within OpenAI infrastructure, and OpenAI can easily pull the plug on it.
Most individual shareholders (especially those who just buy index funds) have neither knowledge of corporate wrongdoings nor, in practice, power to prevent them. A better model would be holding accountable the particular individuals with power and responsibility, such as in the Volkswagen emissions case where Germany criminally prosecuted executives involved in the fraud.
The "software" part of an LLM is pretty trivial -- the interesting piece is the the weights. Since the weights are mechanically generated by a computer, it can be argued that the weights are not copyrightable, just like a photograph taken by a monkey isn't copyrightable.
This has aged poorly; nowadays, the most notable attacks are conducted by state actors (e.g., Russia and China) or for-profit criminal groups (e.g., ransomware) rather than lone hackers doing it for fun.
Minor quibble about this: On large pages, it can be quite slow. E.g., on https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... , it takes a few seconds after initial loading for it be responsive to pressing the PgDown key, at least on my machine.
> "Anti-censorship" is hugely unpopular with the mainstream intellectual community these days.
I'd disagree. It's unpopular with left-leaning mainstream audiences, but among intellectuals who write for a living, I imagine that extra assurances of not getting kicked off the platform are rather attractive.
For Twitter, perhaps a good compromise would be: instead of banning problematic accounts, set to them a "default-mute" state where only people who choose to follow the account can see its tweets.
In my experience (albeit with non-coding questions), ChatGPT 5.2 is often quite eager to critique snippets of its own replies from previous conversations. And reasoning models can definitely find flaws in LLM-written code.