I think what you're saying here is that by "it's not possible" you meant "it's not possible to hold companies liable for their chat-bots' words and still have those companies producing chat-bots." I agree. I think that would be the correct outcome.

There would be some very narrow spaces where LLMs would be usable, but mostly they would cease to pollute everything. Unrelated to AI, I'd like to see lots of regulation that blocks externalizing costs. For example, maybe it's also "impossible" for Walmart to operate in the US if they don't have all their employees getting state assistance. That would also be good. Maybe it's "impossible" to have a beef industry without massive pollution and deforestation. Also good. Et cetera.

In that we aren't regulating any of it?

The question itself self-answers with a little bit of thought: reading the typo as-is doesn't make sense and there's only one obvious correction, which SalmiakDragon provided. So I read their question as more conversation/chattiness rather than genuine confusion. I was replying in kind with an attempt to riff off of my typo: what if the typo was actually intended? Could we find any meaning to the phrase "attach women"? No, not really.

Maybe the difficulty you're having is that you want to judge all action as good (it results in a perfect world) or bad (it does not result in a perfect world) and so inaction becomes the only safe course.

The Patriot Act wasn't created by a single individual. Not only did it require hundreds of powerful politicians working together, but many hundreds of administrative workers, tens of thousands of government employees to apply it, and millions of American voters who approved of it.

Some of the authoritarians behind the Patriot Act were, I'm sure, disappointed at how gentle it is and how few rights it strips away. But they still worked hard every day to enact it and I think you agree that it's played a role in making America more authoritarian and more willing to accept greater loss of rights.

Do you think it's possible to make change in the other direction in the same way? Through imperfect, compromised, incremental changes? If not, why do you suppose this only works in one direction?

Maybe you should have been doing something other than waiting patiently for twenty years. I don't know why people expect something to happen when they do nothing.

You didn't address your misuse of "girl" which I pointed out. Now you've used "moron", "imbecile" and "mentally deficient" all of which are (outdated) psychology diagnoses. And "mouth breather" which... the meaning is right there. Oh and "dumber" ("dumb" means "unable to speak").

It seems to me that you actually don't have any problem with misusing words. Except for one specific word. Why's that, I wonder?

More as an alternative to a search engine.

In my ideal world, StackOverflow would be a public good with a lot of funding and no ads/sponsorship.

Since that's not the case, and everything is hopelessly polluted with ads and SEO, LLMs are momentarily a useful tool for getting results. Their info might be only 3/4 correct, but my search results are also trash. Who knows what people will do in a year when the LLMs have been eating each others slop and are also being stuffed with ads by their owners.

Not really that weird? Basically every organization does this or is immediately unsuccessful. The only exception is companies under a government that's stable enough to carry water for them.

This doesn't mean that the organizations are a net benefit.

I believe you're misreading their posts. In the text that you quoted, they say, "I think f(X) and g(X) both exist. I think that X is actually two populations: X~a~ and X~b~."

You've quoted this to say, "if you don't think g(X) exists then why did you post??"

(f(X) is men who want friendship, g(X) is men who want sex, X~a~ is men in feminist circles, X~b~ is men not in feminist circles.)

It's not working, but I can at least see where they're coming from right? In the not-too-distant past, there was very high inequality and we got the French Revolution and several Communist revolutions. What's different now?

(My assumption is the state power is much greater now, so regimes like North Korea, Iran, Belarus, etc are able to hold power despite making their people unhappy.)

My most recent usage of AI was making some script that uses WinGet to setup a dev environment.

This is a good example. What I'm saying is that pre-AI, I could look this up on StackOverflow and copy/paste blindly and get a slightly higher success rate than today where I can "AI please solve this".

But I shouldn't pick at the details. I think the "AI hater" mentality comes in because we've got this thing that boils down to "a bit more convenient than copying the solution off of StackOverflow" when used very carefully and "much worse than copying and pasting random code" when used otherwise. But instead of this honest pitch, it's mega-hype and it's only when people demand specific examples that someone starts talking like you do here.

Sure, I'm not saying Plex has to do a single-payment model. Just that it's a think that's been done successfully (and for longer than Plex has existed). Everyone's pushing subscription models so hard that it's easy to think "this is the only possible way that anything can work".