The answer to that is "absolutely not"

If you can't code worth a damn, then of course the AI is going to find a lot of "bugs" and many of those bugs aren't even bugs, they generate warnings in the compiler otherwise the program would not compile in the first place. The first thing you do when you want to eliminate bugs is "treat all warnings as errors"

You don't need AI for that.

I'm sure AI is useful for finding errors that don't show up as warnings first, but I can tell you first and second hand that your average open source project has thousands of bugs in them, and they're ignored because the compiler is allowed to ignore warnings, especially those about truncation and incorrect cast's.

Do not let the AI recommend solutions unless the code going into it is already 100% correct, otherwise you may simply be "unplugging the oil pressure light" rather than servicing the vehicle.

Remember "full self driving" , remember "hyperloop"

Yeah, this is more of that.

Funny how all this "return to office" mandates is now blowing up in those companies faces.

Yes they should, however I feel that onus is already on the uploader.

How to solve this is that AI generated videos should generate both visible and invisible metadata that clearly identifies the model and prompt. If a video is "prompted" and then just straight uploaded to youtube, then youtube can just automatically flag it as "AI" internally, and then look for the keywords of political/journalists. If there is a match, then it puts it in the list.

If the prompt is missing, eg post-processing is done to the video, then it needs merely look for upscaling artifacts combined with face identification. Like it's incredibily easy right now to identify AI generated video, because it simply looks like shit.

It's fine if you want to use AI to find errors.

You MUST NOT let the AI write the code. Whatever you submit, must be code YOU wrote. AI "vibe coding" is going to bloat and destroy a lot of products before people get told to stop doing it as their first tool in the box instead of the last.

This absolutely will apply to code, however I feel the question of "laundered" is what is really important here.

If one can merely launder a work through an LLM, to strip it of copyright, won't everyone do that to every creative work out there to effectively end copyright?

What's to stop people from making ML "covers" of music? How is this different from code? (Before you ask, yes, people have already been doing this for both the musical and lyric component of songs, making AI generated tracks of artists who didn't sing a thing, sing that thing.)

To that point, I feel that laundering code through an LLM should not be entitled to copyright, let alone any licence. Because we are talking about code now, but at some point this is going to become "laundering photoshop" that actually disassembles the machine code back into C and then transformed into Rust or something.

No, "harmful content" has a mix of meanings, but it generally means:
- Porn (regardless of who it's sent to )
- Gore/Vore/Violent imagery (regardless of who it's sent to)
- textual depictions of distressing information (Doxxing)

Ultimately the harm from having E2EE is less than the harm from not. If you want to prevent harm to minors, stop letting them use these services.

That is blatently false. It means the QA is garbage if they are constantly fixing broken things every two weeks.

Like the most obnoxious thing I see in iOS software updates is "bugfixes and performance fixes" no details. Tell me why I should bother updating the damn app while I'm on my 5G, and 2 hours away from anywhere.

In most cases, these browser updates could be held off for a year, and nobody would notice a thing.

I swear Chrome "updates" do nothing.

Like are there any changes made in the last 3 years that needed such a high update frequency?

Yes however, most of these "AI generated" slop is 100% a prompt, and 0% human thought.

This is the danger. If you use AI in your film, television, music, or 2D images, people are going to take it, and go "you can't copyright AI generated slop". If you want to make a copyright claim, you're going to have to prove that you did not use AI at all. That means anything you want to profit from has to have a clear start-to-finish of your project. You can't reverse an AI generated image into a sketch and ink layer, and nor can you do this with 3D to generate a wireframe model.

Star disclosing your AI use now, because if you do not, people are going to use that non-disclosure as evidence of AI use.

Not the only thing inconvenient in Korea.
Twitch withdrew from Korea a few years ago because the ISP's want to double dip the fees. I assume this will be a problem for google as well.

I think that's the wrong take-away.

They introduced laptops but they didn't introduce anything that required the laptops. Like what likely happened is the kids became more productive, but it wasn't something seen in the way work was scored.

Like if doing homework before by hand with a pencil took an hour, and with a computer it took 20 minutes, what do you think the kids spent the rest of the time doing?

My point is that the school work has to actually be oriented around using the computer, but the only work ever benefitting from the computer is English/Writing assignments. When kids have access to chatGPT, and so do teachers, nobody is actually checking the work. Hence this "less generation capable" is a consequence of giving kids tools that they haven't learned how to use responsibly.

So I weep for the next generation who were given tablets when they were a baby to be entertained by. They have no situational awareness.

I have a feeling that this "test" was intentionally cherry picked to show what they wanted to show.

Most "audiophile" people have perfect equipment setups, or at least close-enough ones. When you design a test like this you're really only testing the ability of the medium to conduct electricity. You're not actually measuring anything if it conducts electricity at all. Four of the Nine correctly guessed which one was actually the wire, and none of them guessed correctly any of the other materials.

Which begs the question, what was the resistance of each material? Because the only thing that should have happened if it was on the analog end of the circuit, was the audio volume being reduced. There shouldn't have been any noise introduced because in order for noise to be introduced there has to be a RF source being directed at the wire. Wire is a conductor, hence it acts as a radio antenna. But a Banana is not. Same with wet mud.

The "audiophile" monster cables, everyone knew was a BS product claim. Any "audio" analog cable was as good as the next one as long as the resistance was was under a certain amount. Raw speaker wire and a RCA stereo cable is exactly the same wire, just with a connector on the end. This "test" is basically the other way around, where the electrical signal was just forced through another medium.

At any rate, I don't feel this test proved anything except that the signal loss wasn't high enough to notice.

I think the problem in the article is that the people installing Linux on a ARM Mac didn't set their expectations low enough.

The expectation should have been that of Gentoo, where you install everything from source, and never expect an ARM build.
Same with the "No external monitor without HDMI"... how else did you expect to cconnect it? USB? DisplayLink is a proprietary standard. HDMI/DP over USB-C? Ask Nintendo why they don't standardize that either. You likely need in a Mac connect a real USB-C or TB docking station for that. Not the dongles.

My mom hates it.

Everyone who likes air conditioning, hates it, cause it usually turns the AC off, or forces the system to not work.

My opinion is the start-stop is probably heavily wearing on gasoline engines, and should have only ever been a feature of Hybrids, or vehicles with GPS systems so the computer can determine why the vehicle is stopped (eg construction, rail crossing, etc) so it can turn the engine off while in the drive-thru, in the owner's garage/driveway, or a parking lot.

The basic idea is that start-stop should really only be turned on when the vehicle is being used in a way where it's waiting (Eg traffic cops and other emergency vehicles, couriers/mail) frequently, and even then, these are better as EV's. For most practical use cases a hybrid car is a better vehicle for people who live at the city edge or more suburban/rural, so any use of the start-stop is relative to how much they actually go into the city, where as people who pretty much never leave the city, should just get an EV instead. Pure gasoline/diesel vehicles should only be for people who live in ass-backwards unincorporated/townships/villages that don't even have traffic lights. Start-Stop is completely useless there because they will never be stopping except at their destination.