AI questions. Crabgrass has no answers. Crabgrass has impressions, about chasing a fool's errand.

Ars Technica: What if AI doesn’t just keep getting better forever? --New reports highlight fears of diminishing returns for traditional LLM training. 

Ars - New secret math benchmark stumps AI models and PhDs alike -- FrontierMath's difficult questions remain unpublished so that AI companies can't train against it.

Links re second item: here and here 

Not that any Crabgrass readers are super astute, just, stuff is out there and interesting.

 What Crabgrass sees is that a tremendous amount of money has been, so far, wasted on AI's LLMs, witnessed by far with Nvidia having the largest market cap value of ventures, and this thought-of imprevement to stuff where a simple concise sentence can be butchered by bad AI ideas. Microsoft spent a lot, got little, and is continuing at it whereas as an operating system Windows 11 without added copilot garbage is not too bad. Search is search, and it's getting garbaged up. Because they can. Not that it's a good idea, but they can so they do.

Tons have been spent on the Cloud, while this is being typed on Blogger with a barebones laptop, which for now is enough to search the Internet and read search returned items of interest. AI, so far, is an all talk no action failure of large proportion. So, obviously, sink more money into it and pray. That seems Microsoft's business plan, until they shake up management.

To upgrade the home station, a gaming laptop or desktop might be an upgrade, but necessary only if wanting to learn how to program a GPU, where  a single GPU in a machine cannot do much anyway where big server sites are needed to do very little.

Yes. Call me a Luddite. I can take it.

The Crabgrass understanding is that being a drug user is not a crime. Current possession and dealing are criminal. The status of "user" is a separate question.

 Being found currently in possession of controlled substances can be problematic. Having in the past been in possession, there being no other way to be a past "user" than having been in possession at time of use, is that criminalized? Not so, and the question of being a user or addicted to controlled substances and purchasing a firearm and misstating status then on the disclosure form, what Hunter Biden did, as prosecutors defined "addicted" is a crime. Precision in what is crime or not is required in terms of Constitutional due process.

Why split hairs? Because Strib editorial writer Jill Burcum has opined:

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is a powerful law enforcement agency that falls under the U.S. Department of Justice’s oversight umbrella. As the nation grapples with an opioid drug abuse epidemic claiming about 82,000 overdose deaths annually, the DEA’s mission of battling drug trafficking and enforcing controlled substance laws is vital to the public’s health and safety.

Given that reality, Americans deserve to know if the man tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the DOJ as the nation’s next attorney general is himself an illicit drug user.

Who says? Is that objective truth, or the editorialist's opinion? Continuing where the quote was left off -

That’s a key reason why Congress should make public the results of a lengthy U.S. House Committee on Ethics investigation of former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz’s alleged drug use and other alleged misconduct as soon as possible. If Gaetz, R-Fla., is guilty of breaking drug laws, as he stands accused, how can he be trusted to enforce criminal statutes as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer?

Even among questionable choices Trump has made for his second-term Cabinet, Gaetz’s nomination stands out as especially disturbing. The drug-use allegations are just one type of misconduct under scrutiny.

First, what is a "reason" vs. an "argument" and which word applies best?

Beyond that, the charge the editorialist alleges, "breaking drug laws as he stands accused" is vague. Breaking, and having broken are distinct, tense matters. 

As to "disturbing" and "misconduct" those are elastic words, as neither is necessarily a crime. The editorialist makes value judgments where the standard is agree or disagree, based on subjectivity.

Next, consider the sentence as a whole, "If Gaetz, R-Fla., is guilty of breaking drug laws, as he stands accused, how can he be trusted to enforce criminal statutes as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer?"

The direct answer, Trump trusts him, as a fact, and that is a "how can" answer if there is one.

Moreover, one may argue a past user has an experience base to distinguish between serious cartel trafficting across a border, and tooting coke one or several times. So that the DEA does not waste time chasing minor things, but concentrates money and personnel on serious stuff, an experienced past user might in fact be better able to comprehend and administer those distinctions than one not so experienced. The editorialist guesses one way, Crabgrass is not too certain that past use is a per se disqualification. Morally or legally.

Surely Senators will subjectively judge Gaetz on many bases when he is considered for confirmation, but don't call him a current criminal unless there's proof he is one. 

It is fundamental to not wrongly call one a criminal, arguably defamatory if false, but litigated or not the misnomer is something to be avoided. As to hair splitting, Crabgrass likely has erred in posting in ways now discussed, and better choice of words is always possible. This is not saying Gaetz should sue the editorialist for defamation, just, if you write for a living, be careful. 

To the extent Crabgrass might have erred, sorry about that. Point it out and we can have a look. Calling Trump a "convicted felon" is correct in so far as a jury trial was held and a verdict ensued.

But, is one a "convicted felon" if never yet sentenced? That's one that needs discussion. What is the answer?

Thinking Trump made an unwise choice with Gaetz and more so with his DOD choice is clearly a Crabgrass opinion. But opinions can differ. My opinion is Harris would have been a better President than Trump starting in January. So what? Trump won. More voters had a contrary opinion to mine.

If I were a Senator I believe I would decline to vote to confirm Hegseth and Gaetz, but the fact Trump nominated them makes it a real and not hypothetical question for those that actually are Senators. Unless either nominee withdraws, or Trump changes his mind, the Senate can delay, but that's a political thing. 

And the editorialist said the public deserves to know, where the better argument is the Senators should know report content as it would likely affect best judgment. The public? It might be interesting, even salacious, but do I "deserve" knowledge of that doc? You tell me.

I don't like the looseness of that editorial. Gaetz is not a criminal. He's been convicted of nothing. Despite that, the House ethics report might or might not be released to the public, or not be made public but allowed for Senators to view and weigh. We'll see. But stringing words to imply Gaetz is per se unqualified is not sound practice. The editorial boils down to the writer would not confirm. Beyond that, what weight has it?

____________UPDATE__________

Guardian last summer publishing when MinnReformer first published of "bong water" being charged in a Minnesota county as crime indicates that such a prosecutorial step is internationally questionable and stupid. 

Crabgrass hopes that Gaetz, perhaps as a possible past user, if confirmed might be more tolerant of scheduled materials use than Trump, with federal law still on the federal books now inconsistent with changing State mj law. Guardian, currently, suggests the DEA might reclassify mj, this link. That fits the suggestion above that a past user in charge of DOJ/DEA might be more sensible than otherwise. The law is in flux. Many might view DEA enlightenment as a good thing, feeling that sluggishness in adopting new norms is a fault and not a virtue.

Excessively zealous prosecutors, and bong water.

 Minnesota Reformer, "A Journal of the Free People of Minnesota" has the story, and a recent follow-up that the perp has the ACLU on her side. 

Original link. Current story, ACLU involved. What motivates this deviant prosecutor - deviant from reasonable common sense and perspective? And elected, not appointed. People voted that way. Judge from excerpting of the original story:

Last year the Legislature decriminalized drug paraphernalia, even if it contains drug residue. The change represented a step back from the drug war tactics of previous decades, with an eye toward treating substance abuse as a public health problem, rather than a criminal justice concern.

But one obscure relic of the war on drug paraphernalia got overlooked, and was not included in the decriminalization bill: a provision in state law that treats bong water — the water at the bottom of a smoking device, used to cool and purify the intoxicating smoke — as a controlled substance, no different than the uncut version of whatever illicit drug the bong was used to smoke.

People don’t consume bong water, but some prosecutors still use it as evidence to charge drug defendants with more serious crimes than they otherwise would be eligible for.

Just ask Jessica Beske.

On May 8, the 43-year-old Fargo resident was pulled over for speeding on Highway 59 in Polk County, Minnesota, according to charging documents. Deputies smelled marijuana and searched the car, where they allege they found a bong, a glass jar containing a “crystal substance,” and some items of paraphernalia, including pipes.

The residue on the paraphernalia tested positive for methamphetamine, as did the water in the bong and the substance in the glass jar. Deputies further reported that the bong water weighed 8 ounces and, somewhat confusingly, that the crystal substance weighed 13.2 grams “in total with the packaging.”

Beske says the “packaging” is the glass jar, and that the reason deputies included the jar in the weight is that there wasn’t a measurable quantity of substance in it. She maintains she had no drugs on her, only paraphernalia containing residue. That’s precisely the sort of offense that lawmakers decriminalized in the 2023 bill.

But the Polk County prosecutor has instead charged her with first-degree felony possession, which carries a penalty of up to 30 years in prison and a $1,000,000 fine.

It’s because of the bong water.

That post from this summer continues, but now, from the update:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is providing legal representation to Jessica Beske, a Fargo woman facing decades in prison and a potential $1 million fine over bong water allegedly found in her possession in a case that has raised questions about uneven enforcement of the state’s drug laws.

“We’re pretty broadly interested in making sure Minnesotans aren’t criminalized for things like addiction,” said attorney Alicia Granse, who is working on the case. “Do we want to be spending so much of our resources on bong water?”

The ACLU’s involvement speaks to the unusual nature of the case itself, as well as its broader implications for criminal justice reform efforts in Minnesota.

Beske was pulled over in May in Polk County in the northwest part of the state. Upon searching her car, sheriff’s deputies reported they found drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine residue, as well as a glass bong containing 8 ounces of water. 

Because of a longstanding loophole in state law, the county attorney’s office was able to treat the bong water as if it were 8 ounces of pure methamphetamine, warranting a first-degree drug charge carrying up to 30 years in prison. 

The materials allegedly found in her car would not otherwise have resulted in any criminal charges thanks to a 2023 bill decriminalizing drug paraphernalia containing residue.

Bong water prosecutions are highly unusual, and Beske’s story garnered widespread media attention after the Reformer first reported on her case. The Office of Polk County Attorney has a reputation for zealous prosecution of drug cases. A 2014 Star Tribune story revealed it was one of a few in the state charging people for violating an archaic law requiring them to pay taxes on illicit drugs. 

“They’re going hard up there,” Granse said. She questions whether charging people for bong water or marijuana tax stamp violations is actually contributing to public safety. “I don’t know if that’s what we really want to be spending our money on, or our time.”

Scott Buhler, the assistant county attorney working on the case, previously told the Reformer that his office “simply enforces the laws of the state as written.” In reality, prosecutors have a great deal of discretion to decide which offenders to charge and which violations to prosecute.

Granse said the case could end up being a lengthy one: “It sounds like this prosecutor is not willing to give up, but neither am I.”

Is this what the legislature intended? Is this worth public money to pursue? Is this prosecutor's office packed full of Draconian assholes? Multiple questions arise. 

_________UPDATE________

In terminating the initial quote, the suggestion is the remainder is well worth reading. It is the publisher's story, not mine, so the quote was limited.

Noteworthy, this post stands juxtaposed to an earlier one, here. The bottom line, law enforcement can be good, bad or ugly. As to ugly, this additional quote from the original MinnReformer item:

Bong water was written into law following a 2009 state Supreme Court case, State vs. Peck, in which a divided court ruled that water in a pipe could be considered a “drug mixture” under the legal definition, and hence could count toward substance weights used to determine offense severity.

The justices relied, in part, on the testimony of a Minnesota State Patrol officer who claimed that drug users keep bong water “for future use… either drinking it or shooting it in the veins.”

Three of the court’s seven justices dissented. “Bong water is usually discarded when the smoker is finished with consumption of the smoke filtered through the bong water,” they wrote. “A person is not more dangerous, or likely to wreak more havoc, based on the amount of bong water that person possesses.”

The 2009 decision garnered national headlines and made the state the butt of countless jokes. The following year, legislators passed a bill exempting bong water quantities of less than 4 ounces from the legal definition of “mixture.” Despite unanimous support in the Senate and the votes of all but two House members, then-governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed it.

Ugly is as ugly does. Yellow highlighting above is used, for super-ugly decision making justification and/or action. Show me one fucking person injecting bong water and I might change my mind. Moods change. Some don't change with changing moods. Some will believe almost any absurdity. Some will testify to anything.

Kennedy, nominated to head health policy, is against floridation. That opposition causes a film flashback.

  MinnPost published an item about a town's floridation objection, and litigation in Minnesota decades ago arising from it. This link, this screen capture:

 Film flashback? This YouTube video excerpt.