eicker

True. I suppose I’m being a bit too hopeful there.

Hehe… 🤣

Exactly. In my view, this serves no other purpose than to avoid having to engage with an unpopular opinion. It’s a cheap way of dressing up a personal attack as a supposed argument.

Unfortunately, even with very long texts, this is no longer reliably possible, which is why some universities have recently stopped using such tests.

Reposted in the correct thread...

It’s funny that you still believe some tool could tell, with such short texts, whether they were written by an AI or a human. (And unfortunately, even with very long texts, this is no longer reliably possible, which is why some universities have recently stopped using such tests.)

It’s not about who deserves to win, it’s about incentives. If one side unilaterally slows development while others don’t, the likely outcome is a shift in technological leadership, not a slower pace overall. Whether that’s the US, China, or anyone else is a separate political question from whether voluntary restraint is an effective strategy.

»Slow down AI« sounds noble until you ask who actually slows down: Democracies and companies that comply simply hand the advantage to rivals that don’t. History suggests voluntary technological restraint rarely wins against geopolitical competition. The race doesn’t stop: it just changes leaders.

This is why media ownership matters: When the people deciding what gets amplified are also celebrating political power brokers, it becomes harder to separate journalism from influence. Even if Politico’s newsroom stays independent, the optics alone are enough to make readers question where the lines really are.

Exactly. Platform loyalty is a bad archiving strategy. If one platform disappears, changes the rules, or buries old content, your work and links still survive instead of vanishing with someone else’s business decisions.