America only does socialism for rich robber barons in the form of tax breaks, grants, government-supported monopolies, and sweetheart deals, never for ordinary people.
Only if you follow leftist definition of "subsidy" which is "this thing I hate is taxed to hell and back again, but it still exists, so that means it's not taxed enough, and that counts as a subsidy".
The "here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?" line doesn't necessarily imply that one fabricated data, but it certainly implies that you didn't actually read what it spit out, which means the AI could easily have fabricated information and no one has checked it.
Or: you *did* read the paragraph AI spat out, then, when copy-pasting it into manuscript you didn't notice that you also selected the "here's the summary" line.
So the whole thing becomes suspect. And if you did it once, should I trust your next paper where you remembered to delete the proof of your sloppiness any more?
As a reviewer, pre-AI, I have recommended rejection of a paper with multiple references that did not support the facts they were citing from them, on the grounds that the paper demonstrated a slipshod approach to research that made me uncomfortable trusting them on the core claims. It wasn't published, so it seems the editor likely agreed with me. Was anyone banned for it? Probably not, but it makes me think twice before I trust anything those authors write now.
Emphasis mine, because that's the whole freaking point.
Sure, rejection is fine, I'm not saying that's a complete non-issue, *some* penalty is certainly needed to incentivise carefulness, my entire point is that a freaking lifetime ban (because that's what "from now on you have to be peer-reviewed on a site whose entire point of existence is lack of peer review" amounts to) is way overboard for what in current practice is much less penalised.
This just reeks of some AI-hater who got in position of power, going "I can't stop you from using LLMs, so instead if you use them and put one toe out of line I'm going to shoot you in the head for things that'd be a slap-on-the-wrist offence if no AI was involved".
Dismissing fabricated citations as "sloppy text editing" is ridiculous. Citations are effectively you asserting that research evidence exists that backs up your statements and arguments, thus making them little different to fabricating data for a study. Seriously, how is anyone supposed to trust anything in a paper when the literature the study is built off and uses to justify itself are studies which don't exist in the first place? It's a basic expectation of the profession that academics should know the literature in the field they're working in. If you used AI and it gave a citation for something you've never heard of, that's a huge red flag. In the best case scenario, it's identified something you honestly didn't know about, in which case you need to properly review that literature and see if it makes a difference to your conclusions. But more likely, an AI throwing up a citation you've never heard of is going to be something which doesn't exist, and you not spotting that as an author is pathetically sloppy, to the point anyone would be justified in wondering if the rest of your research is just as sloppy.
Nice try at argument, but they explicitly stated that they're willing to do that not only for fabricated citations, but also for leaving the "here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?" line of model output in the manuscript. Tell me again, how is someone missing that a "scientific misconduct dangerous to the process of science"?
Also, even before AI, the "citation you provided does not in any way support what you say it does" thing was also pretty common, yet I don't recall anyone being put in front of firing squad for that. But I guess jaywalking becomes a capital offence if AI is involved.
Exactly right.
I really like their approach, and it should be the standard approach for ALL AI generated work.
You can use AI, but you have to verify/validate it. You can't just dump the results without making sure you reviewed the content. Finding obvious stuff that 'would' have been noticed if you actually read through it, and 'should' have been cleaned up is proof that you didn't adequately review it.
What's easier to find, a left-over chat prompt, or the fact that the data was duplicated and all the results were doubled? If you're reviewing for the second, you would have already noticed the first and fixed it.
This concept should be part of all AI pathways: "Does the model on your flier have 8 fingers?" "Did you check in source code that still contains hallucinated function calls?" "Does your legal brief refer to non-existent cases?" You are penalized. It's not because you used AI...it's because you didn't do YOUR part of making sure the AI didn't screw it up.
No, this is utterly ridiculous. In essence , they're saying that the penalty for sloppy text editing should be (and is) as severe as for, you know, *actual data fabrication*, (see the comment: "then we can't trust *anything* in the paper", LOL, WHAT?!).
What's next, life sentence for jaywalking because "you have shown you're willing to disregard THE LAAAAAW, so we can't trust you not to murder anyone tomorrow"?!
Got lucky a few times.
First launched into the vague area because Compaq had dot-com FOMO and gave Musk a ton of money for Zip2, and did nothing with it. Musk got millions for not much because Compaq had no idea how to evaluate things but was in a frenzied hurry.
Then he made a failing online payment service and effectively conned his way to be in charge of PayPal after a merger, and totally boffed it. Despite being ousted as CEO, he still ended up getting hundreds of millions for just generally screwing up.
Then bullied his way into being a 'founder' of Tesla, nevermind that Tesla already existed before he came along..
Tesla before Musk came along was three guys with a logo and grandiose ideas about how cool it'd be to make an electric car.
"This many bugs"? And how many is that, exactly? A lot? A few? Does it maybe have a relation to what the bugs were and what their impact was?
And that is why I call this infantile. It does impress weak minds (as you just nicely demonstrated), but as soon as you know a bit more it is just ridiculous and means nothing.
Directly quoting the Mozilla blog post: "For a hardened target, just one such bug would have been red-alert in 2025". Yus, totally "infantile". But yes, I guess Bobby Holley who wrote this, whose credentials are, oh, only "CTO of Firefox", obviously has no clue WTF he's talking about, knows way less about severity of those bugs than you do without even knowing what they are, and is one of those "weak minds". Instead we should defer to the wisdom of armchair specialist like you. Or, oh, I know, I know, everyone who says something that contradicts you, like him, is knowingly and deliberately lying, because of course any preexisting bias of such a "strong mind" as yours can't possibly be false, right?
Do you even realise how fucking pathetic you are in your stupid attempts at dismissing this?
Isn't claiming that a magical computer program can find all bugs in another program effectively a variation on the halting problem?
No. As long as "another program" is "common consumer software like a browser" rather than "hardcore theoretical comp sci construct demonstrating something". You can't automatically prove halting on ALL recursive problems, but if you allow a solution of "I can't auto-prove correctness of this loop, so I'm going to rip it out and replace it with simpler code" then a magical computer program fixing all bugs does not break halting problem. When was the last time a "I can't prove this loop terminates on all inputs and that's okay" was an acceptable piece of code in common computer software?
Or the lowest bidder. I would rather have one of those bitchen Chinese EVs than his shitty Mustang E for the money anyway. Protectionism is wrong. 1 Million auto-workers should not be prioritized over 330 million American consumers who are having their options limited. If there is a regulatory requirement like smog or safety systems missing, fine. But regulations MUST apply to all equally.
I wonder if you feel the same about people immigrating here on H1Bs, or techie jobs being offshored to India. Somehow I feel we're about to hear a "oh oh but that's lieks TOOOOTALLY DIFFERENT, and those H1Bs should be deported but but but it's for their own good, to stop them from being exploited or something!" kind of rant.
Two sieg heils from the owner on national TV? No big.
Engagement down 97%? We have our principles, sir!
LOL, desperate, are we? The absolute last thing Elon is widely known for is "not immediately vocalising any thought that comes to his mind". If he really was a Nazi you'd have TONS of quotes to support that, and wouldn't have to resort to deliberately (yes) misinterpreting him waving his hands.
And the really annoying thing about this is that when the AI bubble inevitably crashes, it's going to be difficult to repurpose all of these specialized AI processors into something useful..
This won't be like the 2018-2023 crypto bubble, where we end up with a ton of cheap used GPU's and power supplies available for resale. This stuff with mostly end up in the landfill and scavenged for their raw materials.
"Inevitably crashes"? And how exactly do you think is THAT going to happen? All those people using claude are all of a sudden going to abandon it? At worst some stock market bubbles will burst, but your fantasy of everyone of their users going "oh geee, I've been using claude for 6 months but I just read this random guy on slashdot saying it can't count 'r' in 'strawberry', and now I see the light and I'm dropping it THIS INSTANT" is not going to happen.
And even speaking of the stock market, I doubt you're actually putting your money where your mouth is and are shorting Anthropic, are you? No of course not, bet you have some excuse about "market staying irrational longer than you can stay solvent" or something.
Weight and fat stores is calories in a calories out. What literally else can it be? I know without a doubt now anyone who “can’t” lose weight knows what the energy imbalance part of their equation is, they just don’t want to give it up. Hers was pizza dips, what is yours???
Metabolism isn't deterministic. Your body has stores of fat, muscle, and tissue it can break down at will. 4 years ago, I started intermittent fasting. I carefully controlled my calories, worked from home, and ate the same food every day...just for time sake. I lost about
Bullshit. You know how many trillions Big Pharma spent on trying to find the cure for "broken metabolism"? All those "broken metabolism" studies always went like this: they recruited all those "broken metabolism" ladies who claimed to be able to gain weight on a 1000 kcal diet. Then they put them in a metabolic ward on an *actual* 1000 kcal diet, as calculated by actual scientists. And gee, who would have guessed, invariably those "broken metabolism" ladies miraculously regain their ability to loose weight, at exactly the same rate as the control group.
Oh wait, turns out there's no such thing as a "broken metabolism", 1 molecule of glucose makes exact same amount of ATP for everyone, there's just ladies that suck at estimating their calorie intake. And basal metabolic rate is still most reliably computed from lean body mass. Oh, you're 30% body fat? And you think you're going to have high basal metabolic rate? LOL.
Maybe, if you're looking for someone other than yourself to blame for your problems (as that seems to be your thing) you should look to the people who told you that cardio is the way to get lean. No, the way to fix that is to build metabolically active tissue, i.e. muscle. I.e. lift weights. Do you even lift bro?
And who would have guessed, the antiobesity agents that actually work, the GLP-1s do do jack shit to your metabolism, they're just really powerful appetite suppressants, i.e. they shut your piehole for you. Gee, it's almost as if all those people saying "if you want to get thin, just shut your piehole and that's all" were right all along.
But yes, I guess YOU are the first human in history of science whoose body can break the law of conservation of energy and still gain fat while eating less than you burn. Either that, or you're full of shit. Geeee, I wonder which of these two options might be true...
Starlink is pretty low in orbit, so that may be a mitigating factor. Now, something higher up would be a problem, especially geosync sats.
Good to know it's not really a problem. I wonder why those stupid researchers think it might be a pretty big problem?
No, that's a stupid *you* who thinks it's a "pretty big problem". Neither in the article nor elsewhere are there quotes from any actual scientists who consider this to be anything beyond mild annoyance.
I see. So you don't offer any explanation other than "whataboutism"? MAGA idiots will never change.
I love how you accidentally admitted which side of the political spectrum wants the crackdowns here. Note how OP didn't say a word on republican vs democrat, MAGA, Trump, Bidet, etc.
but the technology will improve
You say this with no evidence that LLMs can be any better than they are today.
LOL, what? The models are getting visibly better every iteration, at a speed which is frankly a bit terrifying even to observe, and you're claiming "no evidence"? I guess you still think they can't count "r" in "strawberry"? No, it's on YOU to provide evidence that the current trend is about to stop.
Please, explain to us how cooling in space is more efficient (without a medium like air or water surrounding you to put your heat into and get it away from your server).
Conservation of energy? Duh? The *only* source of energy you have is solar irradiation (no, chips do not magically make their own energy), and you dissipate it passively as radiation as well. The only "problem" is distributing your heat away from hotspots like chips so they don't fry, like running a coolant loop through the entire thing, but otherwise your space station has exactly the energy balance of a rock floating in space 1 AU away from the Sun. What's the average temp of the Moon? Oh, it's minus fifty C.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
