That conflicts not just with other established law, but also with what I actually said and what the ruling says. The problem with it is that the order can't be considered lawful regardless of what the Supreme court ruled because it doesn't fit all the criteria of a lawful order.
"What is considered a lawful order in the military?
It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate."
One other thing is that you're quoting dissenting members of the SCOTUS, not the ruling itself. That's a single interpretation of it, and one deliberately intended to alarm people so that they push back against it.
But that doesn't sanction military members to break the law or the UCMJ. And that's the point. They do not have immunity, qualified or otherwise. The order would be unlawful simply because of the issuing parties bias and personal gain from the act.
I'm not saying there are not people in the military who would follow this type of order. I'm saying that they don't have the protections or immunity, qualified or otherwise, and honestly, a presidential pardon doesn't do anything for them if the state decides to prosecute them. Plus military members are basically the only people in the US subject to legal double jeopardy because they can be tried by the military separately from state and federal law.
I've actually gone out of my way to avoid it but that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the results (although I would need those results to be accurate), and everything to do with avoiding ads and using the search web function to find very specific and detailed information rather than a summary.
In my short experience with the AI features for search specifically, I have experienced not being able to see the source of that information without having to click through and scroll down or continue a conversation with prompts. I don't want that. It very often slows down my work flow and that's the intention. To keep me on the page making additional queries and looking at more ads.
I have experienced Gemini with my phone though and it's actively worse than google assistant and home assistant in a lot of ways. Features that have allowed me for years to control smart devices and have been broken or unreliable. More so than the results of the Sonos lawsuit.
I want my devices to work. I don't want to have a conversation with a device to turn on lights or find out what the weather is like. Bottom line, the point of my comment was that (obnoxious to you or not), nobody is under attack for using AI products.
There's a little panel you can use the uncut key blade to pop out and a power and ground wire in them that's accessible outside the vehicle. Of course that requires you to have a jump box or another car and some leads. I don't know who needs to hear this but stay real close to civilization if you drive one of these. Don't get stranded in no man's land.
On the mach E, my understanding is there's a panel where you hook up a jump box that supplies power to those circuits to allow you to use your key fob to open the door. But there's no bladed key to manually unlock the car. So technically there's a failsafe but it's not ideal. And I agree it ought not be allowed.
Which makes the point that while AI LLM's can be useful and can be improved, hamfisting them into every product you make as a company because you have FOMO is ill advised and aggravating, especially when you pay people to be subject matter experts in the field and they tell you it's a bad idea. That's what the article said in some very verbose language. Your attention span must be severely lacking because you couldn't read the article and glean that simple point from the words on the page. I read it and it was entertaining and insightful.
You seem like someone who might need paragraphs to be a single sentence.
I'm inclined to believe, based on this thread, that you and the person you're replying to didn't read the article because the person who wrote it and most of the replies to it are not saying "LLM's are garbage and have no benefits".
The post is specifically calling out companies that have jumped on the "AI LLM" train who are trying to force feed it into every single project and service regardless of whether it will be useful or beneficial or not. And they will not listen to people working in the field who tell them no it will not be beneficial.
The hype is what people are upset about because companies are selling something that is useful in selective cases as something that will be useful to everyone universally for just about everything and they're making products worse.
Just look at Google and their implementation of AI LLM'S in search results. That's a product that isn't useful unless it's accurate. And it was not ready to be a public facing service. In their other products it's promising more but actually breaking or removing features that users have been using for years. That's why people are upset. This isn't even taking into account the theft that went on of people's work to get these LLM'S trained.
This is literally just about companies having more FOMO than sense. This is about them creating and providing to the public broken interactions of products filled with the newest "tech marvel" to increase sales or stock price while detrimentally affecting the common user.
For every case of an LLM being useful there are several where it's not. That's the point.
Did they need a slash s for this? Did they? Because people like you make me believe they needed a slash s. Like. Obviously this was a sarcastic comment because the original comment they responded to was horribly fallible. There are whole industries built on the idea that an industry can be destroyed by liability. It's literally why we have liability insurance. So when someone responds to that comment with an equally fallible statement that is clearly meant to be sarcastic we just ignore that because we feel that their statement is wrong? What even is this.
I was in the military. I took the oath. What I'm saying is, if you don't think there are MAGAT idiots in the military (a lot of them), please understand they did a threat assessment of military members while Donald Trump was running for President the first time, and decided to make a military wide training specifically to educate us about that oath and remind us who what we took it to defend. So yes. I absolutely do know some people who are all for militia fighting the government who are still military members.
A gun is a technological marvel of a thing. Scientifically they are really very interesting. How they work is kind of ingenious, and their history and how they have so drastically changed the course of all history is fascinating.
I don't want to say that these people probably are all in that boat. But being a gun nut who wants to shoot someone isn't the only reason to find something interesting. I feel the same way about fireworks and nuclear bombs. Looking at the work that had to be done by so many people in order to make a nuclear bomb and calculate what it would and could do? That's as cool and intriguing as a space shuttle or an oil rig drill.
It is if that's how you think about it. But over time the thinking behind that has changed. Because these types of people are.in our military and they think most military members think like them. By proxy that means they'd be on the side of the "militia".