Zero? I think the expected number of collisions can be larger than zero. Jimmy Johns sandwich delivery by bicycle has resulted in more collisions than zero and that is arguably safe.

You are setting an impossible standard.

The solution space of maximum engagement and easily misinterpreted headlines overlaps quite a bit.

I hate receiving competitive quotes so I take what the 1st guy offers or dont engage at all. AI agents could definitely be useful gathering bids where prices are hidden behind "talk to our sales specialist" gates.

Spell check, autocomplete, grammar editing, A-B tests for bylines and photo use, related stories, viewers also read, tag generation

I guess you have to disclose every single item on your new site that does anything like this. Any byte that touches a stochastic process is tainted forever.

Colloquially “AI” means LLMs and generative art. If you’re trying to make an argument by absurdity and you don’t want it to fall flat, maybe keep it relevant and don’t attack the straw man you just fabricated?

None of those things are "AI" (LLMs). We had those things before, we'll have them after.

Is there a middle ground that hasn't emerged yet?

Someone to host and manage your SLop-As-A-Serivce (SLAAS) for a price point in the middle.

That feels like a business.

Hey, that sounds like OpenAI!

I bought the once weekly 50,000IU bottle on Amazon and am currently taking 4 a day and I am ignoring all growing signs of vitamin D toxicity because I read this guys blog and never once ever decided to consult another source, including later paragraphs in that same blog because there was no warning. Without a warning, you should blindly follow all medical advice you read online.

That is that pathway to death you are worried about?

I was going to say, wouldn't following through on this mistake require you to not just spend a ton of money on pills but also take tons of them a day? I'd like to think this would give even the dumbest of people pause just because of the practicality aspect.

You might be surprised. Medical journals that specialize in reporting one-off cases have some wild articles.

They may not always work, but it's also not the case that they never work - which is what it seems like you're suggesting.

From an article in 2021 regarding Lyft, 38% of sexual assault is passengers assaulting drivers. [1]

Rep. Dingell says, "There is no trade-off that should be acceptable to Uber, considering the devastating impact of sexual assault"

But apparently there is a trade-off for her, seeing as she only wants to focus on one direction of this crime by fingerprints and background checks for drivers and no safeguards protecting drivers. Seems she has chosen to ignore 38% of sexual assaults as well. I wonder why her trade-off is morally superior?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59008000

>I wonder why her trade-off is morally superior?

I mean, if you start using your thinking cap for a few minutes it makes sense.

1. The number of drivers is small. The number of passengers is large. This makes checks on drivers technically possible.

2. Drivers work in their own cars. Are you saying they should get bars installed between the back and front of the car?

3. The passengers are the random public, do you want to submit a criminal background check before riding in a car?

4. These are all things Uber can do themselves to protect their employees. These are not things the public can do to protect themselves from Uber employees.

If you could sit with the authors of this paper and let them know this valuable insight, what do you think they would change about their paper and its conclusion?

The school is tax-payer funded, but I don't get to know why every teacher called out sick.

Government employees, contractors, etc. don't owe your curiousity satiety. We are buying their service, not their soul.