Like, when Baudrillard describes a process wherein we lose access to the Real entirely and get trapped in an infinite discursive hall of mirrors, that's supposed to be understood to be bad! You're not supposed to do it on purpose!!

more seriously I *do* think this kind of thing is downstream of the worst habits in postmodernist philosophy & critical theory, where what are basically discursive word games get treated as equal to (or even privileged over) actual material reality

Told first person from the perspective of the deputy who answers the non-emergency line at the small sheriff's office.

"Oh hi KB, how's it... wait. No. No no no NO. NO."

"A House With Bad Bones" and "Who Removes The Dead"

(Ya know how sometimes a silly idea springs to mind and demands to be shared with someone who'll get the joke? Well, sorry)

If I were allowed to implement any one policy, I would implement a wealth limit: the top 0.1% of the country is only allowed to hold half as much wealth as the bottom 50%.

(Implementation would be annoying, but this is fantasy).

Always remember, the killer feature of LLMs is their ability to convince corporate executives they know what they're talking about.

I think this also has to do with how executives are "big picture" people, who don't fuss over details. So maybe they care less about the issues with AI making up shit, because it doesn't have as much impact for them? While the lower ranks are expected to get the details right?

They both have prestige law schools, and access to how many top-tier lawyers either on staff/faculty or in the alumni network. And they just... fold.