>> I mean, it's there any genuine case you can cover with SO that you cannot with your favorite LLM?
Perhaps better than current models at detecting and pushing back when it sounds like the individual asking the question is thinking of doing something silly/dubious/debatable.
It's a relatively uncontroversial ban, with public support in Aus because of mental health concerns, and key social media sites complying.
VPN's come with their own minimum age 18 T&C's. As do the credit and debit that are usually required somewhere along the line to pay for the services.
Historically, if it's awkward to circumvent most people tend to comply; which means in turn that minority that can figure out a way around it are unlikely to find many of their friends present. While for majority there's unlikely to be much of a draw or peer group pressure to circumvent.
I'm sure Aus gov will monitor, media will highlight problems etc, but would be surprised if it was not actually quit effective.
Similar to with tire wear what's important to emissions is the amount of force that has to be applied to decelerate and how often it occurs. At highway speeds it's far less of an issue, but in slow speed urban environments with lots of stop start driving and high vehicle densities it's a real problem.
TL;DR; Until we are sure we have the moderation systems to assist surfacing the good stuff I would be in favour of temporary guidelines to maintain quality.
Longer ...
I am here for the interesting conversations and polite debate.
In principle I have no issues with either citing AI responses in much the same way we do with any other source. Or with individual's prompting AI's to generate interesting responses on their behalf. When done well I believe it can improve discourse.
Practically though, we know that the volume of content AI's can generate tends to overwhelm human based moderation and review systems. I like the signal to noise ratio as it is; so from my pov I'd be in favour of a cautious approach with a temporary guidelines against it's usage until we are sure we have the moderation tools to preserve that quality.
Even if a throw away and replace strategy is used, eventually a system's complexity will overrun any intelligence's ability to work effectively with it. Poor engineering will cause that development velocity drop off to happen earlier.
The goal of the legislation was to "stop children from accessing age inappropriate content" on the internet.
Ahead of the legislation it was known that there would be a significant proportion of individuals who would switch to using VPN's because without platform based verification it would be a pita for users (more logins, random age verification services, and some sites just deciding to block).
However, VPN's, come with their own minimum age 18 T&C's, as do the means of payment for those services (credit and debit).
So from the pov of "stop children from accessing age inappropriate content" similar result
Not perfect, but empirically this seems to be working well enough e.g. "New data shows no rise in children’s VPN use after the introduction of online age checks" (https://www.internetmatters.org/hub/research/data-shows-no-r...), i.e. the VPN traffic is largely adults.
As to other unintended consequences, such as making it more difficult for the authorities to snoop on their citizens, I doubt this effectively makes any difference whatsoever.
How much of that is conflated with plenty of sites still operating without age gates? I think its more likely to push people to shadier and shadier sites and not VPNs
What killed it was that a lot of its development talent effectively went off and worked on a completely different programming language that eventually got released a Raku.
When the team departed, Perl lost its development velocity and Python wasn't that far behind.
Empirically on UK roads it's as much about the car industry getting away with selling vehicles that are too large for our roads i.e. oversized SUV's and trucks, as anything else. The combination of driver's side closer to crown, and higher mounting, mean the light's from these behemoths tend to cast more of their beams into the eye line of anyone coming the other way, particularly in smaller, lower to the ground vehicles.
> tend to cast more of their beams into the eye line of anyone coming the other way, particularly in smaller, lower to the ground vehicles
I don't think this is the main issue.
I drive a compact SUV, it has perfectly reasonable headlights, pointed downwards like you'd expect, with more of a dip towards oncoming traffic, like headlights have been for decades.
Despite being in a somewhat high-ish vehicle, I'm constantly blinded when driving at night by what is typically, low sports cars with headlights that are indistinguishable from high-beams.
I have no idea how manufacturers got away with this, and I hope something is done soon to make sure a mandate for them being fixed comes in new vehicles, and as part of MOT for existing ones.
I'm in my 30s, with perfect eye sight, and typically have no trouble driving at night or low light, or even low visibility, but it terrifies me that one day I might hit someone after being blinded by these idiotically bright head lights.
Perhaps better than current models at detecting and pushing back when it sounds like the individual asking the question is thinking of doing something silly/dubious/debatable.
reply