I think what they're saying is that in a hyperinflation scenario, it is an option for the government to seize the physical gold backing the financial products people hold in order to continue paying to run the government now that fiat is worthless and they are having trouble with that.
Gold you have buried in your basement, they will have to work a little harder to get.
If the main effect of allowing them nearby is your electric bill going up it seems reasonable to not want them.
Ramble about something for long enough that people should be able to tell is how I do it.
It's possible, but I've followed some public comment processes for regulatory stuff before and large volumes of comments make it take way longer, because there is manual work involved. If a politician wants to still have actual people manually consider the contents of their inbox (which they absolutely should), using AI instead of a form letter will make that much harder for them to do. AI talking to AI to determine what the public thinks and wants is probably going to lose a lot in translation, and if it's using service-based AI will give the companies running it another rather direct way to influence political outcomes.
Given all that, I'm not sure what the advantage is to balance against it either. As opposed to sending a copy of the form letter, where you can assume they will at least count how many people have done that, what's even the benefit of having a LLM rewrite it first?
Well, the person you responded to above was talking about sending more than one, which is the worst part. But even if you are only using AI to rephrase the canned response for your singular comment, that creates a situation where it is more difficult for them to actually read and consider different points people might be bringing up, because now there's lots of messages that are basically just the canned response in content and intent but more effort to group together. Also the people going through them will probably be able to tell AI is being used, which could call into question whether someone was sending more than one even if you were not.
I don't hate AI and think it's fine to use for a bunch of things, but using it to falsify the level of public engagement on a political issue is a clear misuse, it's easy to see how that could make democracy not work as well, or backfire and be used as an argument that all the public sentiment about the issue is astroturfed.
Quickly and effortlessly get some music playing that can act as a backdrop for your real activity such as working, driving, cooking, hosting friends, etc. Keep it rolling indefinitely.
“Discover” new music by statistical means based on your average tastes.
This is the main thing I want out of music software tbh.
I think for some people the only way they can think of to help is attempting to bully someone over the internet, and it ends up applying to whoever happens to be around that disagrees with them, even though that makes zero sense as a strategy.
I think maybe they wouldn't if they are trying to scale their operations to scanning through millions of sites and your site is just one of them
If there's one person who knows their applied zk proofs, it's that guy.
I looked up some stuff about Argentina's financial crisis since you mentioned it before, and it looks like they actually did something a bit like what I'm talking about, directly appropriating the valuable assets they could in an effort to keep being able to function:
There's some indication that this also applied to financial products:
I can't specifically confirm this included gold held on paper, but I think it probably would have.
As for the plausibility of this sort of thing happening in the US, in addition to the actions of Roosevelt mentioned by @diablexical@sh.itjust.works, the main trigger for Nixon abandoning the gold convertibility of US dollars was France attempting to physically withdraw the gold they had stored in US banks, which they didn't want to allow.