I thought that hiring GP was Astronomer's weird attempt at some sort of flex on Crooks. "Hire Paltrow, i bet she's got dirt on him!"

They are OK as long as the Chief People Officer spearheads the effort. I heard she's intimately familiar with the position.

"One agent, however, hacked the method that tracked whether it was making things up."

So...the is rebelling against the researchers? How long until the AI figures out how to get past the guardrails?

(Coming from mine never knows very little about AI)

If I recall, one reason for renaming it was that it's more "inclusive" since "America" is the US, Mexico, etc. wouldn't that mean the name used by the US should revert back to "Gulf of Mexico"since renaming it was DEI?

No, AOL switched to drink coasters a LONG time ago.

The story links to the WSJ article, but that article doesn't link to the report. Google doesn't seem to have it either. Anybody got a link?

Here's another aspect to consider:

The investigations and teeth-gnashing were justified, and she should have been held accountable for it; if you or I had done anything similar we would have been in prison in about 45 minutes. But alas, nothing happened.

Now "the other side" is doing it, and "our side wants accountability" is just as hypocritical. That is plenty of hypocrisy to go around to all sides. BOTH parties need to be behind bars, but as long as accountability is a lost cause in DC, this will continue to be a problem.

How long until this administration kills off NIST? Any bets?

I'm not disagreeing with you; I think I agree with your basis idea that businesses shouldn't get a R&D free ride at taxpayer expense, but your comments raise some questions.

If the business risk to researching and developing some new drug or technology is very high with the chance of success and profit very low, do you think a business will take on that risk? That's why the government which, for better off for worse, has no target profit in mind takes on high-risk research that may eventually yield success and benefit the public. GPS is an example of this. Do you think that any commercial entity would have had the resources to develop this technology?

Second question, feeding off the first: If a new technology/drug/etc is developed by the government, who else is going to commercialize it for the benefit of the public?

Is there no third option, European based tech?

I mean if I was in Europe and offered these "options," I'd look for homegrown too

I saw what you did there...bravo!

Signed,
Tux

I'm in agreement with you re: typing vs. handwriting. I've tried to go paperless several times in my work notes, but always go back to the black Moleskin notebook and flags to highlight to-do items. Even with search functions in apps like OneNote, I tend to remember where I wrote something and can find it faster ("it was halfway down on the right side page back in Octoberish...ahh there it is.").

What basis did this Thayer guy claim he could claim copyright? The AI system allegedly created the "art" "spontaneously" without his input so why does he think he can claim copyright?

I also tend to doubt either word applies here, "spontaneously" or "art."

"Trying the ad capability out" is testing it in a lab under controlled conditions.

This is "seeing what we can get away with."

Who didn't see this coming?