You dont have to bring them to court with it for it to be useful. It could be used to target individuals then they use more conventional methods of evidence gathering to arrest.

I would guess they arent currently doing it enmasse because that doesnt sound useful either. I would say, solely on a vibes based level its been done by US intelligence. Its really not so different than a wiretap.

Wow.

Yeah, I know what its like to have someone you dont really care for not leave you alone.

And then you can’t avoid it and you’ll be a thumping idiot in no time. Omg, you might not even be better than people anymore.

Wow youre so intelligent. Must be really scary that AI is going to take that all away from you.

Oh, so like how people are afraid of clowns and then a clown murders your family. Got it.

Oh so like when someone’s afraid of falling off the edge of the earth?

Damn, I thought flight or fight was the most primitive function. Ah well, back to chewing on this tire.

Ain’t skeerd

Lol, this is the 10,000 thing that makes me stupid. Get a new scare tactic.

Everyone has agency to be more decerning with their purchases.

What about where to draw the line? Everyday the money we use is funneled to some corporation that has a hand in the human suffering that happens around the globe. When is thier evil transfered to me because I contributed to their successs.

I have a hard time reconciling killing is justifiable. I can agree if your life is in immediate danger but then you have the cops who use it as a license to kill. I lean on the side that some things just can’t be justified and we have to mitigate/manage these instances.

Bernie, a notorious independent.

If AI can be used to dismantle democracy it can be used to make it flourish. People are the problem.

What studies? Just fucking link them.

Go on, now. Cya.

From the first link:

One epidemiologic study looked at a population exposed to chloramine in its drinking water and used the disease risk as a baseline for comparing the risk in a population exposed to chlorine in its drinking water. These findings will be addressed only briefly as they are not directly relevant to this document.

Have you looked through the second link? It’s all about EPA methods. If I felt further discussion with you might be productive I might investigate some of the citations. I just think you’re accusing me of one thing and I’m saying something entirely different.

Don’t forget some studies on the benefits

Are you suggesting chlorine is actually good for you, not that it has antibacterial properties that makes the water safer for consumption?

I’ll skip the chlorine safety stuff because I asked for a study.

As far as the toxicity stuff I’m not concerned because you’re still talking about concentration (see. Dilution).

If you had any tact you would understand that I’m not trying to say chlorine is unsafe for human consumption I’m saying that the goal of science isn’t to determine every possible outcome of consuming it.

Anyway. You’ll just have disregard me because we aren’t communicating on the same level.

Again, you’re talking about a dilution. Is a glass of water with trace amount of chlorine, chlorine?

I’d gladly review any study, that you’re aware of, that states there are no longer term effects of drinking trace amounts of chlorine. That is, since it’s such a walk in the park to do.

How exactly would they deploy this if they’re losing money on chatgpt responding to users saying “thank you”?

There is nothing inaccurate about stating poison is poison. You’re arguing the poison will not have an effect. That does not mean anything about its chemical structure or toxic properties have changed.

There is a reason the LD50 is listed. It shows a what concentration will kill a species of animal, usually mice. This is not entire analogous to humans but we accept this is the only practice that is maybe acceptable.

We do not test on humans and there is no blind study to show there are no longterm effects of consuming trace amounts of chlorine in water.