hackyhacky

We frequently use definite articles with plurals. It simply identifies a bounded or known set.

* I understand all languages. -- unbounded set, applies to every language, everywhere

* I understand all the languages. -- bounded set, applies to a known set of languages, i.e. specifically those languages which are supported by a particular program

To be fair, I think "all cases" in this situation is also acceptable.

I have no idea why I shouldn't write "all the cases". What are you trying to say?

> Whether Hungarian qualifies as Finno-Ugric is up for debate,

Is it up for debate? What is the argument against including Hungarian in Finno-Ugric? I mean, the "Ugric" part of Finno-Ugric is in reference to Hungarian.

> [I learned it] "at school" - I learned it at school, I'm not specifying which school

> [I learned it] "at the school" - I learned it at school, the one that was referenced

That's not the distinction that the OP is making. If you say "I am at school", it means you are a student, you attend school. If you say "I am at THE school", it means you are physically at the school building, without specifying whether you are a student. Both of those options are different from saying "at a school." See also "prison", "work", "bed". Similar distinction (in UK English, not so much American English) with "in hospital" vs "in the hospital."

As was pointed out, "I go to the dentist every year" doesn't necessarily mean a particular dentist; it just means some dentist, but we use the definite article anyway, because I guess we consider all dentists interchangeable? We don't use definite articles even when we are referring to a specific thing in specific phrases, such as "I went to Florida by [the] car."

Then there's highly idiomatic use of articles with proper nouns. We say "Buckingham Palace" [no article] but "The Washington Monument" [definite article]. We talk about "The Rockies" [definite article] but "Mount Fuji" [no article]. "Germany" but "The United States." Sometimes we use the definite article when referring to to racial or ethnic groups, and sometimes we don't, and that choice can have complicated social implications ("The Blacks", anyone?).

In short, if a native English speaker tells you that article use is straightforward, then they simply have not considered all the cases.

> since Slavic languages lack articles apart from Sorbian

As far as I know (and as confirmed by Wikipedia [1]), Sorbian does not have articles. Maybe you are thinking of Bulgarian, which does have articles (although the definite article attaches as a suffix to the noun, rather than being an independent word).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_languages

That's fine, but a blog doesn't seem technically more demanding or interesting than a to-do list

> Diplodocus, Long Thought Exclusively American, Turns Up in Spain

Another example of quality American production moving overseas. Globalization will be the end of us

Is it more fashionable to build an AI harness?

The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.

The details don't matter. If you use a machine to commit murder, then you have committed murder, not the machine. The user is responsible, and the article's phrasing is an attempt to obscure that fact.

Pardon, but I think that someone who carries a gun (and is allowed to use it) as part of their work uniform requires stronger, not weaker ethical guidelines than someone who pushes code.

I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.

> The Israeli Effective Altruist firm Irregular caused unsecured AI models to hack real targets.

Why are we saying it this way? They did not "cause AI to hack." This phrasing in analogous to saying "caused the bullet to fire into" instead of "shot."

> You are not smarter than your dog in dog behavior.

That's true, which is my point: intelligence is not a scalar value. LLMs are intelligent from us in different ways, as a result of not being human, despite having access to a record of human behavior.

To bring this back to the dog analogy: we have a rich record of dog behavior and yet people still don't know how to be smarter than dogs in dog behavior. Because we're not dogs.

> What mechanism would an AI have today to simultaneously kill every single human being?

Lull us into a sense of complacent idleness over the course of centuries by slowly taking on more responsibility for maintaining human civilization, until we've lost all ability to think or act on our own, as in WALL-E. Then just stop helping us.

> If it's smarter than you, it can foresee everything you can, and come up with plans better than I can.

I'm smarter than my dog, yet I am frequently unable to foresee my dog's actions.

Serious response: we have no idea what ASI means or might be like. It's literally sci fi (at the moment).

The political, rather than legal, justification for unrestricted gun ownership in the US is that an armed citizenry is able to resist a tyrannical government.

Regardless of your opinion on that argument, I don't think it applies well as an argument against AI regulations.

If the trigger has already been pulled, then we're off the hook. That genie ain't going back in the bottle! Pop the champagne and order 3 more data centers, pronto.

> if you know of an industry that’s properly progressive and countercultural and could conceivably pay at least survival wages

* Be a hallucinogenic therapy shaman.

* Start a cult.

* Work as one of those paid protesters that they always mention on Fox News

Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.

— Lao Tzu

OK, I'll bite. What, in your opinion is happening? What should we be doing instead?

You the real MVP

> Nobody except you is talking about history.

You're kind of missing the point of my comment. You said, in essence, that it's impossible to learn about Communism unless you've experienced it personally.

> China and North Korea, with Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba

Of those countries, how many have you experienced personally, and thus, by your standard, are qualified to comment on?

To what extent is modern China actually Communist, as opposed capitalist-authoritarian?

Formally specified: there exists some human woman, in whose hand this will fit.

I read it. It's definitely a rebuttal.

> which in turn means it was intended to be the last.

That's a bold and misguided assertion of authorial intent.

Since you're a fan of the scientific method: you can please cite sources in support of your claim?

Is the purpose of school to make you do things that you'll enjoy?

> Teaching it to young minds who have not experienced the difference between the realities of communism and the rest is a vanity at best.

So, we shouldn't learn about history until we experience it ourselves? Seems like that would eliminate, uh, most of history.

I haven't experienced the harsh realities of the Cretaceous period but I still like reading about dinosaurs.

> Problem is that book is based on so many things that we know are untrue about humans

Which parts specifically of Animal Farm are untrue? Greed, hypocrisy, cruelty, avarice? Or the talking animals?

> They could be spending eight hours a day in the Kindle app reading classics

Have you been around kids recently? I think we all know what they're doing on the phone, and it's not The Great Gatsby.