“Our article is boring. How do we get more people to read it?”

“Put a good looking able bodied bearded white guy on the cover.”

I’m not

Arstechnica doesn’t cite its sources? All it has are links to more Arstechnica articles.

The above article says,

In the US, the feds are currently testing whether existing laws protecting kids against abuse are enough to shield kids from AI harms.

…but doesn’t cite any sources. There’s an embedded link, back to Arstechnica. What the fuck?

I’m enjoying it as well - there’s a lot of love here. The author has dedicated years of their life to understanding this phenomenon and how to address it; there’s theory, practical uses and tons of documentation.

You don’t need to match energy with fools folks. Keep doing what you love, even if inconsiderate braindead chumps give you a “No.”

no

OPSEC “operational security” is protecting yourself from harm with safe practices, study and research, and technology

It sounds like they need proof that this tech existed before 2013? I’m new to patents… how does this evidence kill the patent?