doc_ick

It likely is, but that’s also on the assumption every author has to be in association with an institution and it’s quick to verify that.

What good reason is there for trust in authorship to be low? I would likely agree for if it’s related to llm-slop.

“Are we prepared to sacrifice everything on the altar of scalability?” If the performance of verification isn’t great, it won’t get adopted. Just general acceptance timelines, look at how long it took for Python 2->3, https 1.2, us real-ids. You can’t adopt a significant change immediately and expect things to work immediately.

“Universities already have the space to do this, for potentially hundreds of defenders per day.” Universities have space for their own students while they’re still funded for the time, but conferences aren’t tied to universities. Even so if they were, from the author “The fraction of desk rejected papers at TMLR used to be about 6% in 2023 but is now at about 53%.” universities would have to raise funds for this massive increase of slop review. Us conferences uses unpaid volunteers (most part) from those areas for reviews.

If an independent conference were to hold in-person interviews (and maybe fly people out) for 1000s of submissions, where would they hold it and how would they pay for it?

Legal names aren’t 1:1 with author names. If they were, who’d verify that?

“Requesting feedback is useless, as the article points out”, I would agree post llm availability. Before that (~pre 2023 I suppose), this wouldn’t have been as large of a concern.

“You need to get the author to do an oral defense to verify that they wrote the paper.” While I agree with this point, it can’t scale. As with the indirect response, vishing and likely video mimicry are only going to be easier with the next llm release. This leaves requiring each author who submitted a paper to fly to a place just to defend a paper in person (assuming all volunteer reviewers are in the same place).

I disagree for academia using papers as an easy medium for verification and providing more knowledge. Llms always short circuit everything, so how would you fix academia?

That would fail, humans and agents could create new “author” accounts by the swarm or have paid author accounts.

I’d agree it’d be a funny proposal, wouldn’t have worked back then but funny.

Not in a direct interview style, but most us conferences can request additional information or feedback. If they conditionally accept or reject a paper, that conditional relies on feedback from the author(s).

Interviews like this are interesting, but in no way can scale to the infinite paper slop conferences are facing.

Please cite claude or llms when they write code.

“Most existing open-source SAST tools rely on regex patterns or LLMs”, this may be the case with new tools in the last 7 months but before then has definitely not been. (Bandit, semgrep, black duck, etc…)

I do like this as an intro project, but why did you choose to use Python source code as your validators and remediation? I initially assumed for llm.

Some stuff the reviewers do could easily be automated. I’m off the mindset everything the reviewers do shouldn’t be automated however, as llms do hallucinate and are still susceptible to ghost prompts.

At the infinite app review scale (some apps malicious, illegal, rip-offs), extra time is inevitable.

“Coding wasn't the hard part.” I would hope not since astra did that.

Above saltiness aside, are you worried Microsoft will see this?

Definitely not exclusive, though I believe they are related enough to not tank one for the other. If a review is 2 seconds and done, then the circle for figuring out the mvp slop app is pretty slim.

Apple has some “trust” for vetting things, and with the wave of slop-apps it fine with a slight delay so the App Store doesn’t become riddled with slop like the android store.

Don’t worry, that’s almost every other page on the feed

Don’t worry, just give them a year and infinite tokens and they can make windows me.

Just have to view their “trust me bro” rating.

HR loves this one trick…

CTO and CEO as a service, I can’t wait to import that into my agents and now see some people sweating.

Unfortunately that seems like bad history. I’ve only had good experience with wsdls, internally and externally, but they were generated with the services and readily available.

Ontop of this, including a photo edit history in a photo including the original photo would increase the size of a photo to be completely unusable or unshareable.

Unfortunately theres no thanks to the suppliers of training data. US courts made sure there’s no recompense for them, and likely never will be.

Seems similar to eminent domain, but without limitations.

100%

Well you don’t repeat yourself if the llm repeats it for you at the cost of millions of tokens.

Sounds like the advice to newcomers is to not worry about trying to learn a programming language. There already is an llm to program for you, and do it better than you could, so just learn how to talk.

Not for everything. There’ll be a more economic version down the road. Foldable phones are a new tech even Samsung is close to 2k so everyone’s testing with high costs.

Nope, ~31 hours when using the inner screen, ~44 hours when using the external. Either way 30 >15 hours for the iPad mini.

Not right now, but I could see eventually. Apple prices are always a bit higher then regular and this is their flagship, the next versions will reduce this original price.

I’m sure that wasn’t healthy and left some kind of mark.

Now was there a realistic health risk involved in that “primary example”? If only everyone just told the truth instead of buying the rights to it.

From my history with llms, this exaggerated example does hit home a bit too close for comfort.

I think you meant to say “due to correct belief, Apple did kill the mini due to sales”?