im_fine_sandy

This type of hallucination is a problem, but is not my biggest concern.

I just want to converse with a human who is listening to me. It’s a bonus if that person has some familiarity with me but it’s not essential.

I certainly do not want an LLM inferring what might be wrong with me.

I feel like this shouldn’t be too much to ask, but it’s becoming that way.

Sorry, that’s just nonsense.

Obviously, bus stops are located according to direct observations like the number of passengers at existing bus stops, and the residential addresses of card holders and so on.

Religious faculties are not constructed or approved according to a quota, but by application. If a religious group applies to a local council to have a building approved for that use, then provided they comply with local policy it will be approved. Councils do not create jedi knight training facilities because the census indicates they ought to do so.

Funding for schools is determined by, perhaps surprisingly, the number of students who are enrolled at that school. I would challenge you to show me some evidence of funding that’s been provided to a school on the basis of a census, but we both know that’s an absurdity. Ridiculous.

The suggestion that pennies will rain down from heaven once the government is aware of my existence just doesn’t withstand a moment’s critical thinking. The notion is merely to motivate you to provide your information in the mistaken belief that you’re serving the greater good.

There’s this specific issue, which is critically important, but also just content management generally.

I think micro instances are a real target for people with nefarious intentions - whether it’s porn, trolling, spamming, fascist groups, whatever.

The hardware and software aspects should be relatively straight forward. The real difficulty will be monitoring new communities, and users.

I’m kind of curious what decisions you think the government will actually make relying on my census response.

Firstly, the data is normalised to account for erroneous responses like mine. That’s basic statistical analysis.

Secondly, anyone who thinks pennies are going to rain down from heaven now the government knows someone lives in your house does not understand politics nor budgets.

LOL. No it’s not.

Basic statistical analysis requires data to be normalised.

It’s trivial to account for non-responses like mine.

That’s true but the risk of being fined is infinitesimal.

Very few people are fined each time, less than 100 australia wide:

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/no-one-yet-prosecuted-over-2016-census-boycott/8315898

The fine is $364 per day up to a maximum of 10 days for refusing to follow the direction of a statistician.

So if you don’t complete the form, their policy is to contact you in person and ask, then give you a direction to complete the form. If you refuse to follow that direction they may refer you to court but that’s not necessarily the case.

They also have a policy of only referring people when their refusal harms the quality of the census. That pretty much means they’re only going to fine conscientious objectors, and assholes.

In my own case, I did not refuse to complete the form. I completed the form incorrectly. The potential fine is $3,640 or something. I would be interested to see a case in which they could apply that. Without an admission of guilt it would be difficult to prosecute and ultimately yield no benefit.

harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies

I don’t think political parties will rely on census data for that. Once reference groups demonstrate that a policy of reducing those concessions has broad support it will be a policy. It doesn’t matter what the census says.

people saying they travel to work by bike

They measure this with direct observations - how many cyclists use pathways et cetera. There’s no city in Australia that’s going to look at census data and decide to invest in bike infrastructure.

Demand for public transport is measured by… the numbers of people using public transport.

The funding thing is a common argument but in almost all cases it seems that direct observations would be more useful.

I have toddlers. Too young to really encounter this problem but it’s on the way.

If you think of a child with well meaning parents but perhaps they’re smokers or something. Does that mean the child is more likely to be smoking by the time they’re 15, or are they going to be the type of kid that’s quite vocal about their disdain for the addiction.

It could go either way.

In my own childhood I saw kids take both directions. Some is surely from the parents, some surely the childs nature, but much of it is just what they observe. Both directly in their parents but also in their peer groups and online.

I’m certain that my kids generation will contain kids that are basically AI-augmented, but I’m also certain that there will be kids who actively avoid reliance on these things.

Who knows which will be predominant.

I often wonder how to influence the outcome in the right direction for my own kids.

Hard disagree on this.

Setting the side the fact that “Leading AI researchers” who are not seeking venture capital do not expect AGI to emerge in any foreseeable time frame…

I’m not gen-Z, so maybe I’m out of touch, but every time someone says “kids these days are all doing x which means this and that” it seems like “the kids” quickly outsmart the trap.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if Gen-Alpha, todays children, eschew digital lives more-so than Gen-x and Gen-z

That’s not really an argument in favor of the census though.

If they already have the information then they don’t need the census.

Oh please.

A binding death benefit nomination isn’t appropriate for most Australians because the fund will act in accordance with most people’s preferences: spouse > kids > siblings > other relatives.

If you don’t conform to that “most people” pattern, then you should have a binding death benefit nomination.

Apparently no one lives at my house.

In the current era of populism I think it’s daft to be providing this type of information to a government department.

I’d pay the fine if that’s what it came down to.