If you are a programmer and you are given clear instructions on what is expected, then yes. If you are a programmer and you are not given clear instructions, then no. However if you are technical lead/architect then you really should be responsible for it.

OTOH if you are a programmer and you raise these concerns then you are on your way to become a technical lead/architect.

In my systems I insist we keep a database table of various common passwords (tens of thousands of these) and we do not allow people using them as well.

Sure, they had to sell their stock, including the parts needed to make the machines. At that time they were also still at least assembling them.

It's different from humans in that human opinions, expertise and intelligence are rooted in their experience. Good or bad, and inconsistent as it is, it is far, far more stable than AI. If you've ever tried to work at a long running task with generative AI, the crash in performance as the context rots is very, very noticeable, and it's intrinsic to the technology. Work with a human long enough, and you will see the faults in his reasoning, sure, but it's just as good or bad as it was at the beginning.

IIci September 1989, Quadra 700 October 1991, in almost the same case. Two years, one month.

That statement was stupid, even absurd the first times that it was used — by the Reich wing. The entire reason I'm still using it when speaking to them is to rub their noses in how fucking stupid it was.

You're two steps behind me as usual, but at least you're getting there.

Insert Travolta looking around meme here. This is me, looking for fucks.

If the airlines are acting as a de facto division of the government by providing them with your personal data, then they should be treated as such. That means they should follow simple rules for protecting PII like collecting and retaining the minimum needed.

You mean like when he claimed the iPhone would be all webapps?

Let's face it, Jobs' only superpower was being a super dick to employees. This can only take you so far.

Since he's living rent-free in your head, can we assume you're the one responsible for the rsilvergun-impersonating LLM spam?

Correct. This is why I don't like the term "hallucinate". AIs don't experience hallucinations, because they don't experience anything. The problem they have would more correctly be called, in psychology terms "confabulation" -- they patch up holes in their knowledge by making up plausible sounding facts.

I have experimented with AI assistance for certain tasks, and find that generative AI absolutely passes the Turing test for short sessions -- if anything it's too good; too fast; too well-informed. But the longer the session goes, the more the illusion of intelligence evaporates.

This is because under the hood, what AI is doing is a bunch of linear algebra. The "model" is a set of matrices, and the "context" is a set of vectors representing your session up to the current point, augmented during each prompt response by results from Internet searches. The problem is, the "context" takes up lots of expensive high performance video RAM, and every user only gets so much of that. When you run out of space for your context, the older stuff drops out of the context. This is why credibility drops the longer a session runs. You start with a nice empty context, and you bring in some internet search results and run them through the model and it all makes sense. When you start throwing out parts of the context, the context turns into inconsistent mush.

It is like saying: someone will do some work for free, because they like it, lets then make sure that we take away the product of their work, they don't need it anyway. How is that a moral stance, how is it good economically? People feel a certain way if someone tries to steal from them. One thing is to work, even if you don't have to, but to understand that the result of your work is yours. It is a completely different proposition to enslave someone just because they can survive without keeping the results of their work. Practically speaking, if someone sees this type of attitude, they choose a different jurisdiction to do their work, where there won't be such blatant abuse.

I disagree with this approach because I am against theft. Whatever an individual can create for himself is his to do with as he desires, not anyone else. I don't understand this sentiment, is there anything in it except for envy?

I am talking about Bezos in the exact sense, that as any developed human individual, he needs to feel useful, which is what motivates him, because clearly it is not money that is his motivation. You added the 'virtuous' part, which is why you started on the path of class division. I did not prescribe a moral aspect to his behavior, only the fact that he is moved to do more than just enjoy his leisure, this has no relation to him being virtuous, this has to do with him losing himself without work.

At this point it's not a question of if we are screwing whales, it's how and how much. Between noise from shipping and sonar, fishing, whaling, general pollution, micro plastics, and climate change, we aren't doing them any favours.

Wait until you find out about American car companies

They would rather not sell you a car. More profitable to sell you a loan to buy a car, or even better just lease it to you for a monthly fee, then take it back and sell it to someone else, maybe in a different market.

List prices are mostly to deter people buying those cars, but at least in the UK if you look around you can usually get them with a very hefty discount. Mine was about 30% off.