AI psychosis would be my term. When you attribute to software the characteristics of a human you are in a psychosis.

Many things share characteristics with human, we have for decades created methods for systems to emulate and synthesize those characteristics. It is sort of delusional to think that the abilities of humans can't be produced by other systems, it is a severe delusion to think that proposing a machine can do it, is psychosis.

That’s not the topic. Read the post I replied to. No matter what a piece of software will never be a human.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested software are people.

But in the same regard it is very likely at some point the ability to simulate a human mind and persona is a real possibility.

This is a good thing, then we can trace exactly who paid for it, and fine them.

Yes, this is not the place to express skepticism of any kind.

The subtle but consistent downvoting to a score of 0 to -1 feels very botted. No matter how I write the comments, anything counter the "AI" propaganda nets me a 0 or -1 total score. I don't care about the points whatsoever, but I find it interesting how there's never a massive downvote, just enough to keep such comments at 0 to -1.

May be reading into things too much, but it is a bit odd.

In science, one hallucinated reference can corrupt the entire rest of the work. So you're completely wrong.

And every piece of work in future which cites the paper with the hallucinated reference.

China would be a good guess.

«Uncivilised»

Compared to what? European and other western countries with significantly higher crime rates?

Safety comes at a cost.

North Korea has a crime rate of approximately 0%. That doesn't make it more civilised than western europe.

Prisoner conditions have nothing to do with crime rates. What is the connection?

When the punishment for a crime is morally worse than the crime itself I think there is a problem.

The punishment should be harsher than the crime. Stealing an apple might not be a "big problem", but it sets a precedent that taking someone else's property is acceptable under some circumstances -- say, the relative value of said object.

I'm not talking about the severity of the punishment I am talking about the moral wrongness of the punishment itself.

Torturing someone for a month for maybe stealing an apple, keep in mind you haven't even been charged with a crime yet, is a morally bankrupt system.

Morals are relative. I happen to align with Japan's morals, and wish Norway would take inspiration from it. We're on the far opposite end of the spectrum.

Nobody needs to pay for any of that

Says who? Please define your definition of the word "needs" here in this context.

With this logic, nobody also "needs" to buy a Ford F-250 Super Duty, a MacBook Pro M5, an RTX 5090, a recreational boat, drink Starbucks daily, etc if your definition of "needs" is just limited to day survival meaning just providing food and shelter but nothing more, and yet people buy them anyway, because it's entertainment, not because they need them to survive.

People will still want escapism and entertainment ESPECIALLY when their lives suck, like in times of economic depression, be it cigarettes, booze, junk food, porn, games, gambling, movies and TV shows, etc, even if you think people don't "need" them. This is how people function. It's scientifically documented.

What a stretch to go from cars and luxury laptop to daily survival

Are you able to read and parse entire sentences and paragraphs in order to grasp the point of a comment, or do you form your opinion from a couple of random words you pick from a paragraph.

Please do not rely on personal attacks on HN

They could control their own Apple TVs to allow that dialogue to be dismissed via the TV controls.

No, the value prop is a streaming device with a clean UX not filled with ads. My phone (which is not an iPhone) has nothing to do with it. Apple TV is a far better YouTube device than Google TV. It's also the best device for Plex, Netflix, and all the streaming apps.

Yes, I believe it's possible to buy an Apple TV without owning an iPhone.

What integrations do you use? I can't really think of what I would miss on the Apple TV if I switched from iPhone. I rarely use AirPlay, disable Photos for in-house privacy reasons, and… oh yeah, the remote control for keyboard, volume, and navigation via iPhone is neat! I think the Apple TV is just a strong product on its own.

I use screen mirroring, a lot. Guess I’m in the minority around here. Really nice projecting your phone on a massive OLED to multitask on the phone. Or even pair programming and conference calls you can mirror the phone to TV for the call while coding on the laptop.

I use my Apple TV like it’s a big iPad stuck to the wall. Because that’s basically what it is. I honestly had no idea so many people just buy it to stream the same content on every other platform

Everyone I know who has or had an Apple TV used it primarily as a streaming device, just as they would use a Google TV device, or a Roku.

Sounds like you are talking about the South African flag.

... they don't require code review by at least one other person before merging..?

If this is indicative of practices over at MS these days, it explains a lot.

It's vibe coding all the way down.