That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying “I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer”. It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn’t just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place.

AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I’ve never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn’t, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway.

In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn’t “know” anything at all. It isn’t sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it.

Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information… ever. Make sure you understand that.

The “funny” thing is, that’s probably not even at Elon’s request. I doubt that he is self-aware enough to know that he is a narcissist that only wants Grok to be his parrot. He thinks he is always right and wants Grok to be “always right” like him, but he would have to acknowledge some deep-seeded flaws in himself to consciously realize that all he wants is for Grok to be the wall his voice echos off of, and everything I’ve seen about the man indicates that he is simply not capable of that kind of self-reflection. The X engineers that have been dealing with the constant meddling of this egotistical man-child, however, surely have his measure pretty thoroughly and knew exactly what Elon ultimately wants is more Elon and would cynically create a Robo-Elon doppelganger to shut him the fuck up about it.

When the real fight comes, the Nazis will have morons running the show, while the Resistance will have the smartest, most experienced people in the world.

Happened before. Jews were round up and killed or fled Germany, and their “Jewish sciences” like the work of Einstein were taboo ot outright rejected. So when it became apparent that nuclear energy could be harnessed to make a bomb, the Germans were on the back foot and had no one with expertise in the theory necessary to build it. Germany fell before the bomb was ultimately built, but it would have turned the tides of the war immediately had they not, as we saw.

The problem now, though, is that most of the world powers already have enough doomsday weapons to destroy all of humanity 10 times over so… even as we get more precise and efficient and effective at taking out specific targets from afar, all it ever takes is for one mad man with a legion of nukes to end it all, and guess what we have…

And the brain drain continues.

I’d drive the bus.

If anyone should be shot or exiled, it’s hateful prices like this that endanger innocent lives. But no, it’s the browns and the trans that are the real danger, apparently.

As another said, reasonable and articulable suspicion is required to id in every state and city in the country regardless of any lower laws or department policies. However(!), they do not have to share that reasonable suspicion with you at all, and can still demand ID without giving it to you. They can have reasonable suspicion against you that you are not aware of, such as matching a description for a crime you’re not involved in. And They could very well have no reasonable suspicion and can lie in the report later if they need to justify it. So long as there isn’t evidence contradicting them, the cop’s word is assumed as fact. So a demand for ID that is lawful is indistinguishable from an unlawful one if they don’t give you the details of their suspicion because you have no way to know if such reason exists or if it’s reasonable or not.

So the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which outlines the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, protects people from being forced to verbally identify or show documents of identification without reasonable cause, among other things. What that has been interpreted to mean by the SCOTUS is that, while they can always request ID without it being a lawful order, a request you can deny without consequence, any policy or state/local ID law that requires identification upon officer request without any other reasonable cause is unlawful. In other words they cannot demand id for no actual reason nor punish you for failing to ID without said reason.

At minimum, they need “reasonable and articulable suspicion” of a real crime that has happened, is happening, or is about to happen, in order to legally require you to ID yourself in every state, district, and city in the country (with the exception of if you are driving a car and get pulled over for a lawful infraction, you must provide your license to prove you’re allowed to drive the vehicle). “Reasonable and articulable suspicion” means that there are real facts that can be pointed to that a reasonable person would deem as a likely indication of crime, not hunches or racial profiling. Some states have higher levels of requirements in order to ID someone, but none can have lower requirements.

BUT, the unfortunate and infuriating truth is that they do not need to actually explain their reasonable and articulate suspicion to you at the time, which ultimately means that they dont have to have it until they justify it to the court much later. They could be just demanding it for no reason unlawfully. Or they could be demanding it because they just saw you pick pocket someone, or someone pointed you out as someone that threatened them, or you match the description of the person that just broke a bunch of windows nearby. All of those things qualify at reasonable suspicion allowing them to ID you in places where that is the minimum requirement. Even if you did nothing wrong, you could still match a description but aren’t the right guy, or they thought that saw you do something unlawful but were actually mistaken. It doesn’t matter. They still have reasonable suspicion unless you somehow factually dispel that suspicion. If you do not dispel that suspicion (maybe because they didn’t even explain their reasons in the first place) and they demand ID, you can be lawfully required to present it even if you did absolutely nothing wrong and don’t have a clue why they are asking at all.

In other words, if they demand ID and don’t explain why, there’s functionally way to discern at the time if the demand is lawful or unlawful even if you have committed no crimes. So you either comply or go to jail and argue your case in court later, regardless of the truth. And btw, even if they had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to lawfully demand ID at the time, they can just lie to justify it. If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it’s assumed to be true. So… enjoy your “freedoms”, I guess.

They’re not going to officially announce it. We’ll have to see if someone talks about it in interview or it gets leaked.