I don't think you could plausibly do this and only catch a property crime charge. If you're caught, forcefully removing worn objects from another person will almost certainly catch you a misdemeanor battery charge in most US jurisdictions.
I'm no lawyer and things vary by location, but clothing is generally considered an extension of the person and usually touching their worn objects constitutes physical contact with the person themselves. Doing so with intent of committing criminal mischief, vandalism, or felony property damage will get all of them thrown at you. If you hastily do so and happen to harm the person in the process (since you're naturally grabbing at someone's eyes, that seems like a serious risk), there's a good chance you'll be given an aggravated or felony battery charge instead.
Mostly because perverts tend not to press charges when they're confronted, not because they wouldn't have legal standing. Also your scenario is clearly not what I was replying to about civil disobedience.
This is asserting personhood or consciousness of LLMs by default in your phrasing and then warning me about the dangers of violating your assertion. You're making the same wager and mistake. There's no important difference, you have no evidence for LLMs being a "someone" any more than you do for a god existing. Warnings about made up things hold no weight.
No, I don't know. Maybe this exact reply is why you get the interactions you do though.
You perceive opposing viewpoints or poking holes in logic as "hating on you", which is playing the victim, followed by alluding to conspiratorial nonsense against you.
> There's no important difference, you have no evidence for LLMs being a "someone" any more than you do for a god existing.
Well... When I ask god if he exists he has never responded to me.
So I would argue that your "any more evidence" is off by several orders of magnitude.
These are the sorts of errors in logic that make me think that people have an undue amount of emotion to discuss the issue rationally. And that's probably why I get attacked.
But hey. Maybe it's something else? Maybe everyone is on their period?
I think we are approaching that now, with correct expectations. With frontier large models you can often one-shot tasks with vague prompts for stuff like creating CRUD APIs and dashboards around a simple data model since it's such a solved-problem now. With something like Qwen3.6 27B or 35B-A3B and a Strix Halo level computer or a MBP with 32GB or more or RAM, you may need to be more explicit and stay involved and be a little more patient, but you can absolutely get work done with it or delegate tasks to it successfully.
My Framework Desktop does a lot of similar work as my Claude subscription at work (Cowork, chats) for 100W of power draw and a little patience waiting for a slow GPU with limited memory bandwidth to crunch the numbers. Agentic coding is obviously weaker but CRUD development and visualization dashboards are within reach, and I'm usually pleasantly surprised at its ability to self-manage devops.
Poke looks like a startup with a 2 month head start that's also unvetted in the market, not a case study of permitted behavior and success at subverting iMessage with agents. Does anyone know if Apple even knows Poke exists yet?
Likewise, Poke also looks doomed. They're creating... OpenClaw but worse. OpenClaw hype and interest has recently fallen off a cliff, I don't think the angels will be getting their money back on that one.
How are your financial incentives aligned against sending spam? From this side, your words seem hollow and the typical viability of these businesses relies on sending spam.
The tourist portions of the city are created and supported by the surrounding population; they generate the parade, music, and celebratory culture year round. We can't just abandon or move the residential areas and keep the rest intact without it becoming a Disney main street facsimile version mocking what it once was, which would destroy the tourist appeal outright.
I agree with you except for the last part, NOLA is gonna get frog boiled into exactly that Disney facsimile, people have shown they aren't discriminating about authenticity to the degree that you are.
Wow, someone mentions fan speeds on their Thinkpad and you go into an unprompted dog whistle rant mode. A certain OEM lives rent free in a blighted mind.
You entirely missed the point in the article: Everybody has access to AI. Nobody needs another person proxying it slowly and poorly in a worse medium than direct access.
Replying with AI responses is equal to saying that you're no longer relevant or valuable to the discussion. If you are annoyed by that and want to block people, fine, obviously nothing of value will be lost because they can just go to the source directly next time instead of you.
They're not doing anyone any favors by disclosing it either, and anyone replying with AI verbatim but undisclosed also isn't going to be savvy enough to hide the other tells and quirks. Assuming they're ever asked again for their "input".
On the contrary, I completely understand the point of the article. I disagree that there are no people who benefit from another person using AI on their behalf.
Everybody has free access to Google, Wikipedia, and Bing - that doesn't make sharing quotes from those sources worthy of abusive language telling people they shouldn't have children. Some people really do find value in another person opening up their ChatGPT subscription, crafting a suitable prompt, and passing on the response. There is absolutely some value in that, and many AI models are not even free.
Even just with Google, some people aren't very good at crafting search queries. Crafting a query or a prompt, deciding which model to use, vetting and sharing the response - these all add value beyond just "proxying it slowly and poorly".
Replying with an AI response can absolutely be relevant and valuable to a discussion, just as replying with a quote from Wikipedia or some other authority can be.
On the other hand, flaming people for trying to help you is, frankly, obnoxious, even if you don't appreciate the help or the manner in which it was offered.
> Replying with an AI response can absolutely be relevant and valuable to a discussion, just as replying with a quote from Wikipedia or some other authority can be.
But AI isn't an authority. If you're using AI as a search engine for other media, then I'd much rather you link to the source than make me wade through "Gemini suggested..." first. We should all know by now that "is this true, Grok?" is not a helpful barometer for anyone.
In your search engine analogy, I'd compare it to someone linking their search query instead of the desired link. Making me do extra work to engage with your point doesn't advance either of our understandings.
Some people are on the bottom 5th percentile of the intelligence bell curve. Some people also enjoy having their balls being smashed in by high heels. Some people... blah blah blah. What a weasel statement. You are describing a straw man scenario that doesn't normally play out in the real world as such.
Replying with AI is the first obnoxious act. People reactive negatively to it should be expected.
I'm baffled how you think syntax doesn't matter. Syntax affects how hard something is to understand when you read it, how hard it is to physically input, how hard it is to make mistakes, how hard it is to parse, interpret or compile.
I'm no lawyer and things vary by location, but clothing is generally considered an extension of the person and usually touching their worn objects constitutes physical contact with the person themselves. Doing so with intent of committing criminal mischief, vandalism, or felony property damage will get all of them thrown at you. If you hastily do so and happen to harm the person in the process (since you're naturally grabbing at someone's eyes, that seems like a serious risk), there's a good chance you'll be given an aggravated or felony battery charge instead.
reply