How would that be technically impossible? Or difficult? Companies are currently liable for the actions of the human agents, and I don't think the implementation needs to be different.

Maybe you mean socially impossible? Like, the major providers have a lot of money behind them and so why would they allow themselves to be liable for anything?

Companies should be liable for what their LLM says.

Using that pattern isn't bad, but look at that text: it's totally over-used and the entire post has less substance than timeghost's mockery.

The moral isn't the opposite. Toad becomes stressed about all the work that needs to be done tomorrow. He instead gets all his work done pretty quickly, takes the rest of the day off, and resolves to do nothing the next day now that he's more relaxed.

Yes, you are correct that the numbers for the Green Party aren't usually enough to make a difference in any election. I'm just frustrated that they're not even providing a legitimate alternative to the Democratic Party.

How I'd want the Greens to work:

1. Run real candidates in local elections who care about the environment and get shit done. Be able to point to things like town X electing a Green as mayor and not having their water poisoned. Or 6 state reps from the Greens passing air pollution controls and getting more business into the state instead of less. Pro-bike laws. Etc.
2. Ask both national parties what they're going to promise to do for the environment and either endorse the better one or release a statement that both parties are unwilling to do anything for the environment and encouraging people to vote local.

How the Greens actually work:

1. Take money from private interests
2. Abandon all local races
3. Fuck around at the national level, drawing attention and money away from groups that would try to get anything done

OK but I would hi-five those people. It's harder to fight capitalism if you're also fighting health problems!

The nature of language is to change over time. Help yourself to internalize that and a lot of these things may become less stressful.

Your attempt to use a non-inflammatory example doesn't really work: "literally" has meant "exaggeratedly" for at least the past 200 years (likely more, it's just been used extensively with that meaning for 200y).

If you try to demand that language have strict meaning, it's just not going to work. Watch:

girls

What's the definition of "girl"? Do they need to be prepubescent? Pre-postpubescent? Or are you using it in the (gasp, shock) sloppy sense of "a girl or a woman"? You've fallen into the exact same pitfall that you were complaining about.

The resolution isn't to claim that all words have an absolute meaning, but to understand that human language is fluid and extraordinarily context-sensitive.

New recruits to ICE receive training on immigration law and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches. Longtime officers get regular refreshers on these topics.

Doubt.

I don't have a problem with rich people choosing not to vote.

I had this mouse and liked it. You rest the heel of your hand on the table and don't move your wrist at all. The mouse movement is fingers-only. Acceleration allows you to cover the entire screen with this very small amount of movement, and because it's all fingers it's highly accurate.

And like all ball-mice, it had a built-in fidget toy.

I notice you asked for an explanation and then only sort-of read the first sentence.