At one point in history, people believed that all you needed to run a business was an MBA. Actual knowledge of the product, processes, people, etc. was irrelevant.

A narrow focus on "managing" a team of AI chat bots suffers from a similar narrow-mindedness. Without actual knowledge of the areas that you're relying on the chat bots to manage, you have no way of determining if the work product you are getting is of any use.

Using a team of bots to produce code without domain knowledge or even general purpose computer science knowledge can only eventually end in tears. But I guess if you can generate the kind of mess a bureaucratic consultancy staffed with MBAs, at a fraction of the price... that's progress of sorts?

Actually, it doesn't even take 5 minute of manual work on Google.

Just checking to see if a given citation exists, nevermind the actual content, is a simple matching query. If I were a lawyer, the very first thing I would do would be to dump every public listing of caselaw I could get my hands on as a local searchable case index, in parallel with having access to a tool like lexis-nexis or PACER (with recap) for more in-depth research. It honestly should be one of the intermediate steps in an AI bot workflow - validate that the citations exist... and then verify that the citation actually bolsters the argument.

Suggested tools:

https://free.law/recap
https://case.law/
https://www.courtlistener.com/...

If you're going to turn an AI bot loose to generate arguments for you, the very least you can do is check its homework, same as you would do for any supervised clerk, paralegal, or lawyer in training working for you. That it can generate bullshit faster than you can is no excuse for shutting off your brain and signing off on it without even doing the bare minimum of due diligence.

The next level of work would be having an AI bot analyze each case and the citations used for the arguments in each, to generate a tree of citations that can be used to argue in one direction or another. Then depending on what arguments you want to bolster, you can selectively cite the cases that give more weight to your case, and prepare counterarguments in case the opposition has prepared an equivalent set of trees that will cherry pick case citations against your argument.

But forget robot lawyers generating bullshit cases. What I want to see is the robot trial judge (and the robot red team lawyer playing the part of the opposition) that can audit your case beforehand and pick it apart so you can be better prepared before you go to trial.

imagine how many more thousands they could save by replacing 200k in toy computers with a real datacenter platform.

I wonder about that. But there's definitely a seeming drive for puffery on individual resumes, and a collective drive for puffery on the entire platform in order to drive mindshare. The same kind of short-term thinking that has people ripping out existing features to "improve" a product, so they can claim that they actually did something in their tenure there.

Instead of doing something to fix a hard problem, say the obscene memory consumption of tabs as part of the base browser, they do things to make Firefox more attractive to say... advertisers who want placement on Firefox's default home page.

This is my impression as a user - I have no window into the workings of the Mozilla team aside from depressing news bits like this one featured on Slashdot...

I think we all know nothing good ever came from that place.

Republicans end individual mandate.
Republicans let the subsidies expire.

"Why would the Democrats do this to the American people??"

One of my state's Republican senators is all-in on chemtrails and "Solar Radiation Modification" lunacy. It's curious how these are the same people who think humanity isn't capable of affecting the climate by burning fossil fuels and pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Yeah, and none of those or even the sub-$400 new laptops are worth buying when $150 5yo business laptops are available.

It's doubtful that Apple will create anything worth buying in the ~$500 market given the ~250GB storage on their $900 macbook air

Yeah they're whining here about this but they throw captchas relentlessly at those of us on standard net configs too. I would say its even more likely to get a robot accusation on desktop than a doublenat mobile session.

So I'm to understand that what happens to students in college is "indoctrination" but a 4-month primer on the superiority of western civilization is not.

Me: you know, many businesses already change between summer and winter schedules; many retail stores, many services, many public transit operators.....

how the hell could they make the "just one administrator" mistake?

It's not a mistake, because it's not a 'permissions/who can be administrator' 'mistake.' It's the account owner. It's the person who's credit card is on file.

Why would Apple 'comply with a court order' that has nothing to do with them?

If the court ordered the father to disband the account, and he didn't disband the account, he needs to be taken back to court to force compliance.

That being said, the article DID make clear that there WAS a court order for him to disband the account, and even if he was using in all the right ways for all the right reasons, not-complying with a court order is extremely problematic.

Then her remedy is to go back to court and compel the target of the order, aka the ex-husband, to do as ordered, not to claim that a third party with no standing in the case is at fault.

If you and I contract that I will sell you may Ford Escape for five grand, and you give me five grand and I don't give you the keys, you don't go to Ford and ask them to make you a key. They will, correctly, say "....and what does this have to do with us?" when you wave the sale contract at them.