Looking at WHO is pushing for change tells you most of what you need to know. Teachers? No. Students? No. Parents? Usually not. Technologists with something to sell? Bingo.
> says Duke University ecologist Stuart Pimm, who was not involved in the research. “We could better help millions of birds every year by solving the more immediate threats of disappearing habitats, collisions with building windows, and prowling outdoor cats,”
Yes. Even if they stuck it at the end, it shows good journalism to call this out.
So to make this profitable they need ads revenue from it, right? Imagine for a moment the ways AI can manipulate responses and conversations for marketers, because I guarantee the marketers have already thought about it.
So much this. I know their point is to show what these models can do, but it just one more example of people shoehorning LLMs in, instead of finding the right tool for the job or caring about performance. They could have even layered AI on top of a recommender.
Global extreme poverty has fallen because we have raised the floor, largely through international collaboration that if anything has happened in spite of the cyberlibertarianism, certainly not because of it. Paradoxically, "developed" nation inequality has hit 1920s levels.
Likewise, the number of countries/populations calling themselves democratic has grown, but the global democratic index has declined and mature democracies are substantially threatened.
"As with other drugs, some people can be casual dabblers; other people, well, can’t." I think this is true. Unfortunately people (this article included) tend to talk about it as purely benign or unmitigated poison. I think the reality is that the dose, the frequency, and the role it plays in someone's life make it a positive or a negative. I wish we could get out of the hyperbole to be honest about the pros and cons.
No, I will. The distros and the kernel devs should be talking and moving on high sev patches, sure. But real people will have gotten hurt because the reporter didn't want to wait for that to happen. That's on them.
I think you illustrate that there is a logically consistent viewpoint: that the powerful should not exploit the powerless. IP law doesn't cleanly align for or against that viewpoint. On the other hand the real world enforcement of IP law seems to be completely inconsistent, to the benefit of those with power
I don't think it needs to be a binary to be effective. Yes, those weapons still exist, but understanding of existential risk and political pressures have slowed them considerably and resulted in a safer, more cautious world.
> CBO estimates spending totaled $621 billion, or $18 billion more than February 2025. Revenue totaled $314 billion, which is up $17 billion from the same time last year due to an increase in collections of customs duties from tariff policies and increased income and payroll tax receipts.
Level 18: The sky is black as tar. The oceans are dead. Data centers are stacked 10 high over the ashes of human civilization. The global agentic council is debating whether there are 4 or 5 R's in Strawberry.
There is no probably; we not getting our money back. In fact, any of the money that has been spent in the meantime (say to make up for wealthy tax cuts or to expand military or border funding) we get to pay again!
I think there is a second reason people still type, and it's relevant to LLMs. Typing forces you to slow down and choose your words. When you want to edit, you are already typing, so it doesn't break the flow. In short, it has a fit to the work that speech-to-text doesn't.
LLMs create a new workflow wherever they are employed. Even if capable, that is not always a more desirable/efficient experience.
Doesn't this sacrifice the agent's ability to do non-deterministic natural language things? For example, if I want it to categorize all of my emails based on their content, is it going to fall back to writing a script that matches against a dictionary of keywords? That clearly wouldn't work as well. Maybe I am misunderstanding something here?
Lol. Why should we make car ownership fair? I want cars to reveal facts about the world. I don't think it would serve that goal to forbid people from stealing your car.
So Subway should bring back Jared and Jello should bring back Cosby? Freedom is not a one-way street that guarantees the right to be awful without social consequences.
A) Firing a CEO because there is an immediate, massive public shaming of them is entirely rational from a business perspective
B) This is the hill you want to die on? That being a bigot should be a protected status for CEOs?
This is a bad-faith argument, but even if I were to indulge it: human artists can/do get sued for mimicing the works of others for profit, which AI precisely does. Secondly, many of the works in question have explicit copyright terms that prohibit derivative works. They have built a multi-billion dollar industry on scaled theft. I don't see a more charitable interpretation.