I’ve tried this repeatedly. I’ve answered “No” to their upsale. I’ve sat there in silence, waiting for it to time out. I’ve asked for a human. Every time the AI takes my order, it adds nacho fries that I didn’t order and specifically rejected.

The problem isn’t that I need a human to fix it. The problem is that the AI is specifically programmed to ignore a rejected upsale. Their AI is smart enough to recognize the rest of my complicated order, but it can’t understand “No”? Horseshit. They are using this fraudulent programming to increase their upsale metrics, expecting us to docilely accept the sale rather than raise a fuss.

Drive-offs are another of the metrics they look at. Since I’ve communicated with nobody but the AI, they have nobody but the AI to blame for the drive-off. They don’t get to blame a human for failing to remediate the problem.

Or, and hear me out: I can drive off, flip them the bird, and go down to one of the other 15 fast food places within a 5 minute drive, that doesn’t use a speech recognition AI to take my order.

The fucking taco bell AI likes to ask if I would like anything else, then ask if I want nacho fries. Then, hearing “No”, go ahead and add them anyway.

Then it likes watching me drive away, giving the store the finger.

This fork isn’t stamped out of sheet steel. It appears to have been forged out of a round bar stock. For that alone, it receives high marks, despite the unconventional appearance.

8/10.

A dead fish can open doors better than Uvalde police officers.

Then we respect their personal agency.

Cracker barrel went out the window with the Mail Pouch cut plug chawin’ by the stove.

Changed the approach of the traveling’ salesman. Made it pretty hard…

Laws are for generalities. Courts are for specificities. The situation you describe is resolved in the courts, not by legislation.

If the guardian is the problem, the courts assign a new guardian. That guardian can be another relative, or it could be a department of the state.

The same laws that protect drunk, unconscious, disabled, senile, or otherwise incapacitated people would still apply. Here, the 18-year-old with a child’s mind would be deemed incompetent, and assigned a guardian.

Bing is for porn.

You haven’t switched yet? What the hell are you waiting for?

What would compel you to announce the multitude of screen names you’ve used over the years? Never practice necromancy. A dead name stays dead; it is never to be referred to by the living.

I still fall for it from time to time. I used to show them the headlines that caught me; they showed me the ones that caught them.

I think showing them how to use PiHole or some other content filtering would be useful. Empower them to shape their own world.

I mean, I was somewhat serious. Maybe not the “you don’t get to know your home address until you’re 10 years old” part.

The arbitrary nature of the rules is the problem. I don’t want my kids limiting themselves just because they think they are supposed to. If they know and understand the reason for the rule, the rule itself doesn’t need to exist.

I might be slightly facetious in my comment.

If I were to be slightly more earnest, I would say that the authoritarian concepts they learn from enforcement of arbitrary restrictions like “no screens in the bedroom” are far more harmful to their well-being than the information they could put on those screens.

The best “tech rule” I could give instill in them is an understanding of the concept of “click bait”. The sooner I can immunize them to paywalls and microtransactions, the better.

VPNs as soon as they can tap a screen. Raise them with online pseudonyms they change annually. They don’t learn their actual PII until they’re at least 10. Can’t give it out to strangers if you don’t know it yourself!

Trump’s gulf is between his ears.