> Or it's indirectly harmful by training us to accept a synthetic reality where nothing can be trusted and everything must be questioned.

I do find myself questioning the premise that accepting a 'synthetic reality where nothing can be trusted' is automatically bad. I've long felt that everyone took what they saw on the internet at face value when they should not. I do hope that injecting enough chaos into the system can force people to question their intake more consistently.

Cops do have some unique tendencies but I think the real issue is the cops are able to leverage the power of the government in ways other large groups cannot.

The problem with police is a) that police have to deal with bad people and it is very hard to stay untainted when you constantly deal with bad people, and b) being a cop is no longer a desirable or rewarding job which not only causes applicant pool issues but also polarises the job and police force itself. Then the nature of polarisation is that it is self reinforcing. So if your job isn't rewarding financially or socially, the "perks" must come from somewhere and so it attracts people who seek to abuse power etc

> So if your job isn't rewarding financially

I don't know where you are, but some of the highest paid public employees in my state are police. In fact, median salaries for cops are higher than those of software engineers.

Add the fact that they get generous pensions + benefits, and can retire at 45 and draw from that pension until they die, they have it better than most of the people they police.

It's one of the only professions where you can make north of $250k+ a year doing overtime by sitting in your car playing Candy Crush all night.

I believe strongly that people have zero problem paying their knuckle dragging police fuckwad of the day $150k if they would actually do the job they signed up for. It’s the fact that 99% of them can’t handle it that pisses people off

I don’t agree that police isn’t attractive or rewarding, the salaries have gone up and requirements reduced (college degree requirements in places for example)

Come with a pension and active lifestyle with a club(FoP) and a union in some positions, its ostensibly public service and you get to much more than peek behind the curtain.

Personally, I feel both ways about cops writ large. I feel like we could do a lot better really easily(mandatory body cam recordings please? Our guys literally just take them off.), and on the other hand I get it, they’re doing important work often enough.

You could improve it by simply doing the thing you describe and linking to it.

You cannot make a similar argument for any tool that makes jobs easier, because the argument is dependent on the unique attribute of LLMs: providing wrong answers confidently.

You can though with some creativity.

There are lots of tools that give a wrong solution that appears correct, and easier ones tend to do that the most.

Plenty of people who needed a real dev team to design an application probably hoped on Dreamweaver, were suddenly able to bumble their way some interface that looked impressive but would never scale (even to the original goal level of scale mind you).

-

Any time you have a tool that lowers the barrier of entry to a field, you get a spectrum of people from those who have right-sized expectations and can suddenly do the thing themselves, to people who massively overestimate how easy the field is to master and get in over their heads.

This isn't even a programming thing, off the top of my head Sharkbites get this kind of rep in plumbling

You could argue the RPi did this to hardware, where people are using a Linux SBC to do the job a 555 timer could do and saying that's hardware.

Point-and-shoot, then smartphone cameras, did this and now a lot more people think they can be a photographer based on shots their phone spends more processing power per image than we used to get to the moon on.

This comment seems to not appreciate how changing the scope of impact is itself a gigantic problem (and the one that needs to be immediately solved for).

It's as if someone created a device that made cancer airborne and contagious and you come in to say "to be fair, cancer existed before this device, the device just made it way worse". Yes? And? Do you have a solution to solving the cancer? Then pointing it out really isn't doing anything. Focus on getting people to stop using the contagious aerosol first.

This both has nothing to do with the linked article (beyond the use of brain rot in the title, but I'm certain you must have read the thing you're commenting on, surely) and is simply incorrect.

Brain rot in this context is not a reference to slang.

> Brain rot in this context is not a reference to slang.

I suppose I should have replied to one of the many comments here where my response is the correct context, rather than a top level.

thanks, I hate it.

Chatgpt has such an obvious and boring writing style.

People are not kogs in a machine. You cannot simply make enough rules, enough legislation, and magically they will act the way you want them to. Humans deserve autonomy, and that autonomy includes making poor decisions around their own body/existence.

Chatgpt didn't induce suicidality into this individual. It provided resources they could seek for help. People advocating for higher guardrails are simply using this as a Trojan horse to inject more spying, construct the usefulness of the tool, and make a worse experience for everyone.

Well said. Painful truth but truth nonetheless.

Really interesting breakdown. What jumped out to me wasn’t just the bugs (CORS wide open, incorrect Basic auth, weak token randomness), but how much the human devs seemed to lean on Claude’s output even when it was clearly offbase. That “implicit grant for public clients” bit is wild; it’s deprecated in OAuth 2.1, and Claude just tossed it in like it was fine, and then it stuck.

I put in the implicit grant because someone requested it. I had it flagged off by default because it's deprecated.