AFAIK the transponder kind of turns itself on when powering on the plane, you'd have to explicitly disable it but then you'd have weird discussions with the airport tower guiding you to a free timeslot on the runway which would just delay your takeoff, since ignoring the airport tower is a good way to not get off the ground at all because you'll accidentally be hit by some other plane.
I mean, it's an obvious difference in the primary use cases - if you explicitly want an isolated answer, you might clear context and start from scratch, and if you explicitly want a discussion with a persistent companion (as these people did before any of that psychosis started) then you won't do that.
The key missing step which breaks the loop is that while indeed a larger and larger portion of the web is written by language models, that data isn't being used to train new models - at the beginning of LLMs people did indeed want to use "all the web" to train models, but that's not being done now anymore, you either take only old pre-LLM data, or you pay for new 'clean' data, or take extensive filtering steps to avoid accidentally ingesting synthetic data.
The main phrase of the title "model collapse is happening" is untrue and not substantiated in the article - all the true statements in the article are about the hypothetical problem, warning of the bad consequences that would likely happen if makers of major models did something they aren't doing, but they aren't doing that because that is a known issue that they're avoiding. It's like writing an article "Foot shooting epidemic is happening" with a long, solid (and true!) proof that if you'll shoot yourself in the foot, it will indeed cause serious injury...
The Iran war was one of the biggest economic boons Russia could hope for; the disruption of oil and gas exports from Middle East with the associated spike in global prices brought Russian economy back from the dead, as now their exports are so much more valuable.
The root cause of identity theft in USA and some other places is the lack of "proper" national identity and the associated use of various personal "secrets" (not that secret) for identity verification because there are no good easy other ways.
Businesses in Scandinavia and many other countries would not treat someone knowing your personal information as any evidence of identity (because it's not); having all that information is not sufficient to impersonate you there - identity theft does happen but it would require stealing or forging physical documents or actual credentials to things like bank accounts; knowing all of what your mother or spouse would know is not enough to e.g. get credit or get valuable goods in your name.
The current bills (e.g. NY one at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8102/amendm... ) require age assurance that goes beyond mere assertions, so when creating your (adult) user account it would be required to give away your privacy to prove your age - if you can't implement a way for anonymous/pseudonymous people to verify that they indeed are adults (and not kids claiming to be so), these bills prohibit you to manufacture internet-connected systems that can be used by anonymous/pseudonymous users.
That would be a violation of the copyright law or the GPL licence - you aren't permitted to take GPL code and redistribute it with some extra restrictions added on to it.
If it's not (fully) your code, you aren't free to set the licence conditions; Linus can't do that without getting approval from 100% (not 99% or so) of authors who contributed code.
What one can do is add an informative disclaimer saying "To the best of our knowledge, installing or running this thing in California is prohibited - we permit to do whatever you want with it, but how you'll comply with that law is your business".
What I'm confused about is how the proposed bills would apply to servers.
Like, in general, a software change to add an "age class" attribute to user accounts and a syscall "what's this attribute for the current user account" would satisfy the California bill and that's a relatively minor change (the bad part is the NY bill that allegedly requires technical verification of whatever the user claimed).
The weird issue is how should that attribute be filled for the 'root' or 'www-data' user of a linux machine I have on the cloud. Or, to put aside open source for that matter, the Administrator account on a Windows Active Directory system.
Because "user accounts" don't necessarily have any mapping (much less a 1-to-1 mapping) to a person; many user accounts are personal but many are not.
The key parameter for swap size is "how memory-hungry things you want to run", which isn't easy to measure, but paying for installed RAM is a somewhat usable proxy metric for that. If you were happy with 8gb, it's some evidence that your apps don't need much memory (and swap), but if you needed to pay for an upgrade to 32gb, that's some evidence that you're the kind of user who needs much more swap than those with 8gb of RAM.
where do you see this goal post moving? From my perspective, it never was "The AIs will never do this." but rather even before day 1 all the experts were explicitly saying that AIs will absolutely do this, that alignment isn't solved or anything close to being solved, so any "ethical guidelines" that we can implement are just a bandaid that will hide some problematic behavior but won't really prevent this even if done to the best of our current ability.
Abstractions are inherently a tradeoff, and too much abstraction hurts you when the assumptions break.
For a major example, treating a network resource like a file is neat and elegant and simple while the network works well, however, once you have unreliable or slow or intermittent connectivity, the abstraction breaks and you have to handle the fact that it's not really like a local file, and your elegant abstraction has to be mangled with all kinds of things so that your apps are able to do that.
If you discard all major video streaming sites (including adult entertainment) then you probably can get most of the way there; you're probably mostly interested in text communication and actual user data, not the video content which is so much larger than that.
This shouldn't be a major issue because of Forward Secrecy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_secrecy) principles built into modern TLS protocols, which ensure that even if the public/private key scheme is vulnerable to (for example) quantum attacks, the attacks have to be done now, as a MITM for the handshake, or otherwise the full traffic capture is useless for future decryption without getting some secrets from one of the endpoints.
That being said, it's not 100% used everywhere yet (Wikipedia mentions 92.6% of websites), and various means of tricking devices into downgrading to an older protocol would result in traffic that might be decrypted later.
It's just that out of these two claims only one is interesting and worth talking about (and that's the one mentioned in the title).
Thank you for your testing! That's a bunch of effort which I didn't do - but checking the other claim is much more difficult; a refusal is clearly visible, but saying whether out of two different codebases one is systematically slightly less secure is quite tricky - so that's why people are complaining about the lack of any description of the methodology of how they measure that, without which the claims actually are not testable.
It's interesting that I just read an inteview with YouTube CEO (https://stratechery.com/2025/an-interview-with-youtube-ceo-n...) who mentioned that YouTube fully intends to start getting a cut out of that sponsorship money ("to align interests better").
I'd probably be OK if all the content which doesn't get made without sponsorship wouldn't get made at all, and the people who work as content creators stopped doing so. There is an overabundance of new content, having 10x less content would be perfectly fine, and in pretty much every niche there are amateur enthusiasts who clearly (based on their amount of viewers) are giving their time away, and their content is in many ways preferable and "more real" than the professionals - so I'd be OK if all the professionals stop and these awkward amateur enthusiasts are all that remain.
The same applies to web and blogs; the ability to monetize them by ads (and I do remember the "old web" before it was the case) increased the content but drowned out viewership for the true enthusiasts running things in their spare time, which IMHO were more valuable and I think that regime was better; again, losing 90% or 99% of the content wouldn't be bad in my mind, there still would be more than enough for anyone to ever "consume".
Well in your example it didn't write less secure code (wich is the core claim of the article, and something new), it refused to provide an answer about Falun Gong, which the article also claims, but that's not the interesting part of the article as censorship of certain keywords is well known DeepSeek behavior since it was released.