Azure did better than expected, that's it.

Give them a few more months of business as usual and there will be a correction

What LLMs do can not reasonably be called learning, or even frankly training, though the latter has unfortunately stuck.

On the other hand it's also not storing the original data (although the training corpus is that) but rather data about the data.

However, the standard for a derivative work is that it contains substantial recognizable elements, not that it's a 1:1 copy, so that distinction may be irrelevant, or at least not mean what you think it means.

Yeah but what are the odds that the training corpuses don't have tons of closed source code that just nobody has noticed is in there? While browsing the Web I've accidentally tripped over sources for SunOS and AmigaOS for example.

"I'd advise you you to shut the fuck up and work on a project that's now possible where before you needed a whole team."

Why, so they can replace me with someone cheaper next week? Or do you mean I should create some project in hope of a buyout when the organization that could buy it from me can just prompt their own version without me?

"There's actually plenty of examples on YouTube of Tesla's FSD avoiding collisions"

And there's actual court cases about Tesla's FSD mistaking the side of a trailer for the sky and driving under it, or going full speed towards a barrier and then disabling itself a fraction of a second before the collision so they can claim FSD didn't cause the accident because it wasn't in control at the time. Well guess what, neither was anyone else, and Tesla set them up for that.

It's as much of a newscast as anything on Fox aside from Fox Business

Can anyone here with a straight face state they truly believe "The View" is a newscast?

Every day, you prove you know nothing.

Why do you do it? For the love of losing the game?

It's crazy-making but not completely crazy since their goal was to scapegoat.

It's still a little crazy, because whose fault is it the user wasn't trained?

A typical "modern" (as in, recently developed, the only meaning of the word which usually applies to government IT) solution is to pay a contractor way too much to develop a solution. Your IT department is barely involved.

Government software is seemingly always super duper specific to the task at hand with no thought for the future, so then you get to pay more millions (or billions) for a new system or major revisions to the old one in a few years. But at least it doesn't generally have this kind of problem.

College debt is also a bad thing, but at least you get a chance to participate. If there's nobody willing to take you as an apprentice, it keeps you from participating completely. It doesn't sound like you know anything at all about the subject at hand, nor have you even read what you're replying to...

I've (apparently) got news for you, governments use excel spreadsheets for sensitive data constantly. For a lot of purposes it is the right tool for the job... doesn't sound like it was this time, to be fair, but that doesn't change the general statement. Spreadsheets are often a great place to do data munging before giving the data a final home. The spreadsheets are not the problem, a policy of sharing spreadsheets without having them verified safe to share is. It's a much better policy for example to print to a PDF and then share that. Like spreadsheets, PDFs have their own problems when misused, but in this case it would have solved the problem because the hidden sheet wouldn't print.

It's an insane thing to do with sensitive data. It's a great thing to do with tables the users don't need to access when you're using Excel for something that really should be done with a database application :)