1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test

"Even for people in the car, some older car designs put the drivers legs under the engine block. In a head on collision at speed, the legs were the crumple zone (meanwhile the steering column was being pushed through your torso)." Anytime anyone waxes nostalgic about how "they dont make cars like they used" I think about this video. They sure as hell don't make cars like they used too, you can get out and walk away from a crash in your ugly newer car that would brutally end your life in one of those beautiful classic cars. For anyone that is curious the key thing to pay attention to in survivability here (besides yah know... the airbag) is.. does the interior cab of the car change shape? The cab of the old car violently changes shape in a way that would destroy parts of your body whereas the newer car's cab doesnt seem to be affected at all. Even if getting crushed between the seats and dashboard didnt kill you immediately in the bel air, I struggle to imagine how emergency first responders would even get you out of that. [this video]

This reads like something my 88-year-old father would write. "Everything used to be better, and hamburgers should cost a nickle!" Look, as consumers, we make choices. You can still get a safety-razor on Amazon if you want. The trouble is... man, if you don't know how to use them right, you can get some nasty cuts. For me... modern idiot-proof razors that this article rants against... well they're just bliss. I can't remember the last time I cut myself shaving. My Dad said something like, "They sure don't make cars like they used to!" And I said, "No, they don't... they're much safer now, much better gas mileage..." [this video]

That is certainly a factor. Crumple zones do a lot to absorb forces of impact and prevent intrusion into the passenger compartment. See also: [0] We're getting to the point where a lot of cars that could be called "classic" still have the modern safety features without all of the connected bs. Most late 90s-early 2000s cars have multiple airbags, crumple zones, active seatbelts etc. without also needing to have subscriptions, telemetry, or really any connectedness at all. Granted, subscription-based safety features aren't the point here, but they're certainly a future possibility (as discussed here last year with a motorcycle safety accessory[1]). [0]: [this video] [1]: [link]

> LLMs are impossible to make safe in the same sense that humans cannot be made safe. No. LLMs are impossible to make safe in the same sense that a car designed as if it was the ~1940's would be impossible to make safe for its passengers during an at-speed collision. There's only so much you can do if you're committed to using plate glass, rigid steel everything, and leaving out occupant safety belts because they're unpopular and spoil the lines of the cabin. [0] Back in the day, "the people in the cabin are the crumple zone" was state of the art, but we've learned an awful lot about how to make much, much safer personal vehicles in the ~75 years since then. It'd be massively irresponsible to design and sell a car today that ignored the safety and engineering lessons we've learned since then. "Funnily" enough, the major LLM providers have designed and are selling access to systems that they very much want to be used in situations where you need a reliable, safe tool... but they've -somehow- ignored one of the most fundamental lessons we've learned about the design of safe software systems that are intended to be used in the presence of attacker-controlled inputs. [1] What they've done is no less irresponsible than designing and selling a new car that conforms to the very latest safety regs of the 1940's... AFAIK, it's so irresponsible to design and sell such a car commercially that -in the US- it's a violation of federal law to do so. As an aside: you may have seen this video