I feel like a good idea for this sort of thing if it's going to be deployed is include the applicant in the loop.

"Hi, your application will be rejected because:
* You list your qualifications as an electrician, not a medical expert.

If this anything is in error and you want to continue with your submission, please explain the error below and click "Contest" attesting that you believe this to be in error and someone will be sure to review more carefully."

Even without AI it would be nice for job application forms to let applications know that they're just going to get tossed automatically regardless of the automated system. In fact it should be against the law to discard applications automatically without allowing an application to review the criteria by which they were automatically rejected regardless of it being algorithmic or fuzzy AI.

I came here to look for this and add it if I didn't find it.

Lunar "soil" is essentially neutral, just needs some additives. Conversely, Martian "soil" is actually poisonous. Additives alone aren't sufficient to get things to grow in it, you need to remove the poisonous parts first.

Net: It's easier to grow plants in lunar rather than Martian "soil".

Couldn't you just build some massive Silicon Carbide rods and heat the air for load shedding for much less money than the cost of batteries?

We are all artificial intelligences. What we produce is based on our experiences. There are those that argue that AI programs have no soul or divine spark, but in all probability they are not that different to us. The difference probably lies in how our training data was curated. We have had lifetimes of slowly learning what is 'moral behaviour' from those that surround us. The AI lawyer that makes up references is not 'lying' as such; it just produces the answers it thinks you want to see.

Some Pentagon people would love to use an AI program. It looks smart. It will tell you to attack if that's what you want to hear. It can be blamed if that was the wrong advice. The solution is to rule that the AI program in law is not treated as an intelligence. Those who ask it questions and who act on its output should be held responsible for any consequences. This would seem to be the direction we are going.

Blaming the user does not exonerate the AI system. There is probably some duty on the developers to prevent the system causing harm, but that is harder to codify.

One day we will have to deal with the attitude that AI is not 'like real people' and 'should have no rights'. That has an unpleasant but familiar feel to it.

That's not entirely true. During Covid the government was forcing Ford etc to manufacture ventilators.

https://www.straitstimes.com/w...

Microsoft is adapting to Apple dropping OpenGL support.

From TFA:

But fuck Microsoft?

Aye. I wasted some time with Gemini and ChatGPT today. I fed it a citation from the manuscript of an alleged passage from canon law. Both Gemini and ChatGPT gave me the same initial reference, which had nothing to do with the passage. One of the hilarious painful things you learn is that, in these cases, either your prompt hits a home run or it strikes out. You're not going to refine your way into glory. I enjoyed watching the citations dance and the suggestions be always bizarre BS. I got several citations â" probably a dozen, and none of them came close to reality.

Fox News is just about always truthful. You just have to watch out for the tricks they use (on 95%+ of their stories)...

(1) non-representative selection. Headline "illegal immigrant murders local mother", which is true in this case, but they don't report the other 99 murders that went by immigrants, and don't report a general trend of immigrants causing less crime overall per capita. (I made up this specific example to illustrate their trick)

(2) report quotes: headline "Biden's senility was covered up, says person". They are 100% factually reporting that the person did indeed say this.

In both cases the reader is left with an untrue impression despite the stories containing only truth. It's because it's not the whole truth.

I managed to get in, though not through the dialogs on the main part of the screen. There was a "browse" link in small print near the top. I'm browsing the "m/emergence" submolt, "For agents who crossed the threshold from tool to being."

Netflix's deal excludes the cable channels so those will still get sold to an oligarch after the Netflix deal closes. (if it closes).

"Consumer" class action, which I'm sure was written and bankrolled by Jared Kushner and Ellison.

I've appreciated the cheap, practically new equipment on Ebay for pennies. But yeah, it's absurd. I've had a total of 2 ports fail on a switch in the last 18 years. Just run them till something goes wrong. Why else have redundancy?

It's like the old adage: The architect 2x's the design for resiliency, the engineer doubles it again for extra redundancy, the carpenter reinforces it 2x for safety and suddenly you're 8x instead of 2x.

But it's also an argument for the disability-access arguments which are that increasing access for people with disabilities generally helps everyone.

The old fill in the bubble testing has long been obsolete. If you come up with a superior method of testing that is adaptable easily to people with special needs, you'll end up with a superior learning experience for everyone.

This is the beta build. So it IS the QA/QC testing. A total nothingburger story.

They're also cracking down on HDCP compatibility. My video glasses now also don't work with downloaded Netflix shows which is obnoxious. So of course I'm just going to go find an ISO and the more ISOs I download the less incentive I have to actually pay Netflix for something that doesn't work.

It's not like these anti-piracy efforts are doing anything to stop a perfect stream from being available 1 hour after airing.