5,676 karma · joined August 27, 2017
The reason is quite simple. When Microsoft steals YOUR work, GDP go up. When YOU steal Microsoft's work, GDP go down. And the people who create and enforce our laws want GDP to go up. To these people morality and rights are a thin guise that can be conveniently discarded when it's invonvenient for them.
While doing teaching special ed she developed a fondness for teaching math. But she isn't allowed to take on a general ed math class because she doesn't have a "math endorsement" - which would require her to go back to school again for basically another advanced degree in math. And she can't get a general ed job in history because it's too competitive and her years of experience makes her too expensive compared to fresh blood.
If you want to get your foot in the door in a competitive market, degrees help. They offer some substitute for experience. But it's ridiculous to require them.
This reads like an April Fools joke. Even the title sounds like satire.
That sounds great, but how are LLMs supposed to achieve this? You can't just say "AI will make a utopia". You have to present a vision for how it will get us there.
I'm tired of hearing about how AI will solve all the worlds problems. I want to see actual progress towards achieving these goals. And for the most part that hasn't manifested. Most people would consider AI to have had a net negative impact on their lives.
At the end of the day it's just a big weighted graph traversal. Its output is a result of many combined probabilities. It's not deterministic and even if it was the input range is so massive that it would be impossible to comprehensively test.
You cannot possibly know an LLM will do what you command it to. It's impossible by design. LLMs are inherently unpredictable. They can still be useful, but that unpredictability needs to be accounted for to use them safely.
Tools cannot eschew accountability. But the users of the tools can and that is exactly what happened in the PocketOS fiasco.
Just as a company is responsible for the actions of its junior employees, so too are users responsible for their LLMs.
"It is a poor workman who blames his tools."
I'm curious what about them would be more difficult to plan, install, and maintain. Obviously there are many things to consider when retrofitting a building with a central gas furnace... but otherwise why would they be much more complicated than an air conditioning system?
But my wife is also a high school teacher and one of the most consistent problems I hear about from her is smartphones being a distraction. If she lets a kid use their smartphone as a calculator, odds are they'll soon be scrolling content feeds, playing games, or chatting with others. If her school required students to have a graphing calculator with limited functionality, it would probably be a benefit to her classroom.
Okay... so? I do not understand the connection between Linux and the US/Israel. You'd think Iran would be very pro-Linux since Windows is a very obvious liability for them.
Is there any reason to believe this attack even has anything to do with Iran? They could simply want money and they just happen to also be pro-Iran.
IMO that is what automated static analysis jobs are for. Let me configure my IDE how I want.
But it's definitely possible to use AI without letting it think for you. OP should at least acknowledge that.
Those who dogmatically refuse AI outright may be disadvantaged for some things in the future. But it's also probably hyperbolic to say they will be "left behind".
LLMs don't do or have any of this. To them "rules" (just like all prompts) are just weights on a graph traversal used to output text.
They are not the same.
Prompts are just weights on a graph traversal. They don't guarantee anything. The LLM does not "understand" the prompts and so it cannot fully adhere to them. They only improve the liklihood it will output what you want.
Never ever ever give an LLM access to something you can't afford to break. And stop thinking of them like people.
I challenge you to give me an example of how this law might result in a phone that is worse for most people.
This law does not require a slide-off phone cover. It does not require a screwed-on backplate. It does not forbid the use of chemical adhesives. It does not stipulate how a phone should or shouldn't be designed.
It basically just requires the manufacturer to offer replacement batteries and to enable the replacement to be done with commercially available tools. I'd wager the overwhelming majority of phones are already compliant, pending availability of a replacement battery from the manufacturer.
I'm quite confident I could replace the battery on my Sony Xperia 1 iii with a heat gun and my basic iFixit toolkit.
1. It increases the chances of any bugs being found and resolved.
2. It encourages the author to be more careful with their code to avoid long reviews with a lot of findings.
3. It ensures at least two people - the author and approverd - have familiarity with the code.
4. It spreads responsibility for the code across at least two people - the author and approvers.
It's clear this article's author does not review their own code. I sure hope that code is not used for anything important.
It's pattern matching on training material. There is almost certainly an overlap between positivity and success in the training material. Positive prompts cause the pattern matching to weight towards positivity and therefor more successful material.
You lost me here. I can make changes very quickly once I understand both the problem and the solution I want to go with. Modifying text is quite easy. I spend very little time doing it as a developer.
They can't realistically make Linux illegal. But they can put onerous requirements on popular Linux distributions - such as the age "verification" features they're currently trying to require[0]. Hopefully that proves to be ineffective.