Me too, but it took a lot longer and I was a lot less thorough. I would skim a half-dozen links from the search result, the LLM reads a lot more, and a lot more thoroughly.

I do. I tell the LLM to always include links to its sources, and I check them. Not all of them, but enough to make sure the LLM is accurately representing them. Granted that other people might not do this, but those other people also wouldn't check more than the first hit from the search engine, which is basically the same problem. If you only read the top hit, you're trusting the search engine's ranking algorithm.

That seems like a potential risk. I have't actually seen that happening in any of the stuff I've looked at.

Adverts pay for the web. And also clutter it up. Both of these things are true. Without advertising, there would be very little content that isn't paywalled, and there would be far less content than there is. Slashdot wouldn't exist, for example. The key is to keep advertising sufficiently profitable that it can fund the web, but not so intrusive that it make the web awful.

How do we do that? The best idea I've seen is to use adblockers that selectively block the obnoxious ads. But not enough people do it, so that doesn't work either.

This. There seems to be a widespread assumption that random genetic changes are somehow less problematic than carefully-selected ones because they're "natural" or something. It's not like cosmic rays, mutagenic chemicals, transcription errors and other sources of random genetic mutation are somehow careful not to make harmful changes. Engineered changes might not be better than random mutations, but they're clearly not worse.

Er, I guess I couldn't decide whether to say "closer" or "more closely" and munged them together. :-)

If only there were a way to preview posts before submitting them...

I'm not seeing why "launch and loiter" is beneficial. If Mars transfer windows were only hours, or even days, long, I could see that it's useful to launch early so that you don't end up missing your window because of weather or ground equipment problems, but the transfer windows are weeks to months in duration.

It seems to me that this strategy is mainly driven by lack of confidence in New Glenn, which makes sense given that it's a completely unproven platform. Over the 8+ weeks of the 2026 launch window they could certainly get to space with a reliable platform. Something like Falcon 9 might have some delays due to weather or minor technical issues, but it's extremely unlikely it would miss the window entirely. But New Glenn might have weeks of delays, so launching early might make sense.

What would make even more sense is if NASA is concerned that New Glenn might fail catastrophically. Making the attempt a full year early might provide enough time to build and launch a replacement.

Does anyone who follows this more closer have a better explanation?

I'm trying to look for a high cost card with lots of rewards, actually. I plan on using them at those establishments that refuse to take cash - either ones that are deliberately cashless, or ones that limit cash transactions.

Several times I go to buy something, I present a 20 and they refuse it asking if I have a card. A super-high-fee card would work well in this instance. You want me to use my card and not cash? Then you'll have to make it worth my while.

(I have more "normal" credit cards for regular transactions, I just don't want to be forced to use a credit card - it should be my decision).

Sorry to hear you have a terminal prognosis.

I'm not sure there are enough terminally ill but still fairly healthy people who also have the right skills and mindset though. When you think how few people manage to become astronauts... And they would want to be extremely sure that your condition is stable and you won't deteriorate during launch g-forces, in zero-g, en-route, or shortly after arriving. A lot of the work is quite physical. Even in Mars' lower gravity, those suits are heavy and bulky and stiffer than normal clothing.

Then there are the legal aspects of it. Countries that allow assisted dying only tend to do so in fairly narrow circumstances, so the legal landscape for suicide missions is, at best, unclear.

Then you end up with vague tickets you can't act on. You can't win, and I say that from bitter experience.

While AI is unreliable, I have to point out that human summaries aren't all that reliable either. I've read more than a few textbooks that were full of obvious nonsense and terrible advice.

I tried AI for a web app I made for personal use. It couldn't build a working app, but it did at least get me the keywords I needed to google to build my own. Some of the tech it suggested was outdated and deprecated, so basically about as reliable as the Reddit posts it was trained on.

Typically we don't destroy an entire firm for the misconduct of one employee, unless it's so extreme that it justifies screwing all their other clients. Imagine if your case was headed to court and your lawyer said their firm had been wiped out by another employee using AI, so you need to find another lawyer and hope the court is willing to accommodate the delay. Even if the court is, re-doing much of the process, document exchange, and so on will take a lot of time and create more expense, that you might end up being liable for if you lose.

To be fair, lawyers do use external services that in theory leak a lot of information about their cases all the time, and have done for decades. Databases of case law are the obvious example. The searches give an insight into what the lawyer is thinking, what their likely arguments will be, things they may have overlooked.

Naturally those services offer confidentiality, the same as the phone company promises not to listen to the lawyer's call to their client, unless legally compelled to.

The question is, are there any AI legal research services offering that?

They believe they are superior humans, proven by the fact that they are rich or at the forefront of the latest tech bubble. Never mind dad's emerald mine...

There is no excuse for submitting AI slop. When you file a court brief, you sign it indicating that you read it and it is as accurate as you can verify. You may quibble over details but you indicate everything you put in the file is factual.

Putting in fake case citations means you didn't read what you filed which means you violated your duty as a lawyer when you filed it.

Also - checking citations isn't hard. There's this tool called "Google" that you can spend 5 minutes with looking up citations. It doesn't need a law library - since all the case information is online. Takes maybe 5 minutes and something you can have your intern do.

Maybe an hour if you want to do a cursory glance at the case and make sure it's actually saying what you think it's saying. After all, nothing's worse than citing a case to say one thing when the case actually went the opposite way.

And honestly, I think the punishment could be simpler - you lose the case. Whatever it is. If a prosecutor did it and now causes a criminal to go free, well, lucky day for the criminal and the public will have their say at the voting booth for letting criminals go free. If it's a civil case, too bad, so sad, but now you have grounds for suing for inadequate representation.

Lawyers who lose their cases this way build a reputation and it's one where the free market and voters can easily resolve.

Even apart from costs associated with proprietary software, the other reason to avoid vendor lock-in is to avoid self-propagating backdoors in the compiler. Ken Thompson described how to make such a backdoor with C in his 1983 "Reflections on Trusting Trust" speech. David A. Wheeler described "diverse double-compiling", a defense against compiler backdoors that relies on the existence of independent implementations of a language. Stable Rust doesn't have that because it's such a moving target, with widely used programs relying on language and library features less than half a year old.

See also "Reflections on Rusting Trust" by Manish Goregaokar