If he was "crushing" the interviews, part of me sees this as a pretty clever way to "date" several companies before deciding which one(s) to commit to. Or maybe he's just trying to pull in as much income as possible in a short-term and dishonest fashion.

In the modern job market where the company/employee relationship is often very adversarial, this seems like an almost natural next evolutionary phase/exploit. Similar to all those "remote employees" in N. Korea. If companies will continue to treat employees as assets and adversaries, they'll need to step up their opsec game accordingly.

That's some peak cognitive dissonance right there.

What are two words that will sour me on your product faster than an inkjet printer demanding one to buy more ink cartridges?

Their dedication to authenticity is impressive.

As a teacher in a large, public high school, I can confirm that at least one school is still unprepared for ChatGPT. Pretty sure we're not the only one.

Agreed. It is a valid discussion and reducing it to a black and white generalization is absurd.

A complete win for Western content creators would likely leave AI development and advancement crippled compared to countries where it is unfettered. Our content creators can sip their kombuchas while foreign AI dominates the future.

A complete win for AI companies would likely result in continued, flagrant abuse of created content for profit in a manner which competes with the content creators. Doesn't seem right, either.

I'm no Zuckerfan, but nowhere in the article was there a quote of or reference to Zuckerberg saying that he wants most of one's friends to be AI. It might be interpreted as implied by his statement comparing the average American's number of friends to their demand for friendships, but that's a stretch at best. I'm all for pointing out the foibles, flaws, and crimes of influential billionaires, but let's not discredit ourselves by painting with too broad a brush.

From https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmo...:

The same solo author (a computer scientist) has made many similar claims based on a variety of datasets. Often coming to completely contradictory conclusions. Some of these claims have been followed up by astronomers, who found errors in his analysis and poor statistical tests. His claims have been discussed in this sub before. Independent studies have found no significant evidence of anisotropy.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras...

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/...

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/...

Take his claims about JWST as an example. In 2024 he wrote a paper about some early data, claiming to find more galaxies rotating with the Milky Way. He claimed based on a sample of just 34 galaxies that the signal was significant. Now he has looked at a wider dataset of the same area, which should allow him to verify his analysis. But it shows exactly the opposite, more anti. So he writes a paper saying this new result is definitely significant but doesn't reflect on the fact he has written two papers which contradict each other. He has failed to reproduce his own result. The take away is that his results are not as significant as he claims. He's also looking at a tiny area, and nearby galaxies can have correlated spins. He doesn't take this into account either. There are multiple JWST fields in different directions he could examine in different directions to test his claims, there are two JADES fields, but he only publishes one.

I do wish the MNRAS editors would take measures to stop publishing low quality claims like this without more robust review. If you look at the text, itâ(TM)s largely repeating results from his old papers. Thereâ(TM)s very little discussion of the new results.

He barely stopped himself before saying "and good luck keeping them from playing Roblox." Kind of like with smoking crack, if it were freely available wherever kids spend most of their time.

I started teaching computer science and engineering classes in a large, public high school a few years ago. There is a significant fraction of students who regularly rely on ChatGPT (or similar tools) to do their work for them. Never mind the private group chats they use to share their work and tips for cheating. They talk about it openly with each other during class or in the hallways, on a regular basis.

I've had some students who cheated in similar fashion in my class. Whenever I notice it (so far), I take it seriously and go through the normal (and very time consuming) process to document and report it. Then the parents get involved.

About half the time, the parents challenge the report, based solely on their child's word. I try to make sure they understand the documented evidence, but in the end I always go with whatever the parent prefers, which is usually to rescind the report. Never mind the significant hassle and legal liability doing otherwise would create for myself and administration. I can make mistakes, and it's not always completely obvious whether something constitutes an academic integrity violation. I imagine that if I were the child's parent, I would want their teacher to listen to me and prioritize what I prefer for my own child. I'm not always happy about it, but I'm okay with that.

Because of all this, I can understand why I hear so many students regularly talking about cheating. It's probably because their teachers don't even try to detect or correct the issue. It's not worth the hassle to them, and its far, far easier to just let it go unaddressed. I think the result is that many high school students learn to normalize various degrees of cheating, cunning tactics, and learn to become rather convincing actors. It's only later in college or on the job that they learn about the real world consequences.

Doom, but played on a low-cost, retail pregnancy test device.

Evidence commensurate with the degree of trust.

Wearing elegant jeans and a jacket when it may or may not be dressy enough. Black dress shoes for the cautious grandmaster, Vans or sneakers for the adventurous gentleman.

Free Luigi?

I enjoyed reading Kim Stanley Robinson's rendition of this idea in Ministry for the Future. Like the plot of that book, I think the haphazard and piecemeal approaches to geoengineering our way out of climate change may not be optimal, but are probably necessary and more realistic than hoping for our deeply flawed global organizations and national governments to initiate a more effective approach.