Her wife was giving him the cold shoulder.

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.

I found GP2.5 to be great at academic-style research and writing; it was absolutely awful at writing code. So; I would tell it to plan some thing for me and write it in a way that could be used by another agent (Claude Code) to build the code to do the thing. In this way, it has been great! I haven't yet attempted it with 3.

That said, I found GP3.0's page to be hilarious:

It demonstrates PhD-level reasoning with top scores on Humanityâ(TM)s Last Exam (37.5% without the usage of any tools) and GPQA Diamond (91.9%). It also sets a new standard for frontier models in mathematics, achieving a new state-of-the-art of 23.4% on MathArena Apex.

It then proceeds to show, lower down on the page, an example of what it can do, by showing off 'Our Family Recipes". If there's anything that touts PhD-level reasoning and writing, it's a recipe book.

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?

A "Disable all AI crap and stop pushing this shit already" switch would be more desirable.

Higher quality slop and approaching pink slip.

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.

Longer than most think.

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

-Sixteen Tons, Tennessee Ernie Ford

"Harvard is a hedge fund with classrooms" - Scott Galloway

AI is some sort of technology, whoever develops this technology better wins something supposedly. Governments have nothing to do with this, technology doesn't belong to the governments.

we are talking about different things. You are talking about class division, all of this, I am talking about a person who does not have to work and yet he does it because he wants to, yes, but personally for him there is nothing to be gained except more headache, it is not about earning more, it is about doing something with yourself.

I am saying that doing something is an important part of living, doing something useful, where you feel useful, this is what this example shows.

Certainly, if you worked as an office cleaner most of your life, probably you will not be missing that work if you were able to get a pension and stop working, but I think you will still be missing the entire aspect of being useful in a wider sense of the word.

I think what makes us people is desire to be useful, doesn't matter how much money you make. I think people who do not have that desire are actually less than developed people.

Humans are answerable for their misdeeds. LLMs are not.

You can't treat it any other submission, for a variety of reasons. Some important ones are:

1) AI did not create the code. It lifted it from somewhere else, and it will be contributed without proper attribution.
2) There is no way to know if the lifted code has a compatible license, since there is no way to know where it came from.
3) If (or when) the rightful owner is identified, the lawsuits will fly.

Nuke it from orbit, then destroy the galaxy from which it originated. It's the only way to be sure.

My point is that a guy with all the money still chooses to do it, shows that people lose themselves when they have nothing to do that involves more than just enjoyment.