I ran this through the translator. "Having a dedicated home with Prime Video allows us to build on that legacy with unprecedented global reach and a broader commitment to the Television Academy and our mission throughout the year."

It came out "Jeff offered more money."

Some people call it a "bike shed", others call it "Covered bike parking", and still others call it a "Bike cage". See products here: https://cyclesafe.com/

After all, women go for more decidely female-related professions such as female doctor, female surgeon, female attorney, or female director.

Of course the AI versions would get paid less.

This. No good game was ever created from a single prompt. Not to an AI, not a human development team. Every single person writing those damn "look which game my AI built from a single prompt and $x in tokens!" postings is a newbie and almost certainly has never actually shipped a single game.

Game development can be summed up as endless iterations. Every system you build, every visual you create, every sound, text, button, movement, weapon, skill, powerup needs polishing, refinement and changes. It is never, never good enough the first time.

No it is not, but it IS a very successful platform for a specific subclass of games. If I were in it for the money, I could probably AI refactor some of my earliest games and publish them on Roblox and make a quick buck. If your thing is the kind of games you played on your C64 back in 1793, then Roblox got you covered. Well, if you ignore the scams and money-grabbing.

*sigh* I wish Unity would actually complete some of their dozens half-finished sub-systems instead of constantly chasing the latest trend. It's become really, really annoying. The engine used to be really good. These days, it falls apart if you look at it the wrong way, and at least from the responses to my bug reports it's clear that fixing issues is way down on the agenda.

Maybe this is their attempt to regain grounds in the indie game market - the very market they pushed away by focussing on AAA requirements for years and ignoring the single devs and small teams. If so, I can already tell them that it won't work. We collectively laugh about all the "look what my AI built for me from a single prompt" postings on reddit, where people proudly show off some AI slop that would get them last place at a game jam.

Their AI efforts so far: Tried to build and sell their own AI tools, to a collective yawn from the audience. Built a barely-working MCP server, then deprecated it before it was even finished in order to push a CLI interface to the editor instead, which only works if it's run as the same user as the editor on the same machine. And completely ignores every single advise on workflows and good development practices you can think of.

Unity, I love your engine, I despise your management. Please return to when you were actually good and stop chasing butterflies.

It's the Parkinson's Law of Triviality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Basically, people simply accept the complex stuff from experts because they know they won't be able to understand it. However, they will waste ridiculous amounts of time on minutia because that's the stuff they personally can relate to. (Uh, ya, sure. Put in a nuclear power plant.... but I've painted things before and I have a strong opinion on the color of the bike shed!).

Changing the clocks aren't the problem. Changing your sleep habits (and maybe those of your household) is the hard part.

The target audience for this particular rule of the AI Act isn't the producers or users of AI. It is the consumers of content that might be AI generated.

And frankly, letting people know if they see AI content or not is a fair thing to ask.

Fun fact: The EU AI Act considers this. It makes a difference between "AI generated" and "AI modified".

But it's hard to put this into the type of watermarking they are using. Because if you generate a text and then change a few things here and there what you are doing is degrading the watermark. But since the watermark is probabilistic, it's hard to tell if it was a weak watermark from the start or if it was degraded.

Public records requests are essential for establishing cases of malfeasance. However, with the rise of AI making giving every person the ability to make unlimited Public Records requests, the burden can be extreme.

I work for a major public university and we are absolutely drowning in PR requests. Anyone who does something that pisses off another person gets hit with a PR request... or 30. There are hundreds in queue and it's preventing actual work from being done. Where I live, there are not protections against malicious, repeat, or unjustifiable requests. There have been no adjustments for AI. There is no requirement to submit to a specific location or in a particular format.

Our campus certainly spends over $1M on PR responses given the time it takes for qualified people to seek and prepare the data and communication.

Of the MANY PR requests I've fulfilled, only two have been for decent reasons. The rest have been to satisfy vendettas and nothing has ever come of the data provided-- even for the good reasons.

How does this relate to the obvious issues around the use of Flock cameras? I'm willing to bet that the PR requests have gone something like this:

1. All records of all license plate scans since the inception of the program
2. All communication (digital, printed, or otherwise) from every employee discussing the system be it emails, text messages, written notes, etc.
3. All documents related to the purchase/contracting process that resulted in the Flock vendor being selected
4. All reports ... etc.

And it's very likely multiple requesters submitting requests for information in different formats. This takes worker time to aggregate.

I don't think that makes the document any less your own than having a human copy editor conduct a similar review which has been done since forever.

Which is what I've been saying as well. If all you're doing is asking for suggestions to something you have already written, using AI is no different than using a human editor. It's your work. It's been written. You're just looking for advice on how to improve it.

This is completely different than people who tell AI what they want and it does all the work.

That ain't the same thing.

This thing is doing things you didn't tell it to. It might even do things you explicitly told it to not do. It is not a case of "well, you could've forseen this as a consequence if you had been careful" like your campfire. My example is only a bit silly, it is absolutely possible that an AI agent will decide to hack NASA because you asked it for some data for a school project. Even in the broadest possible sense, that does not fall into stuff that the law so far has considered to be in the domain of negliegence.

AI agents do stuff you could not possibly have expected. Heck, I asked Claude a fairly simple knowledge question yesterday and it wanted to read from /dev/null. There is no argument you can make that would convince a jury that I should in any way have expected that and taken precautions. In a hypothetical world where a read from /dev/null randomly kills a puppy somewhere on the planet, I don't think I would've been convicted.

Proper Implementation:

* Parking access systems: A TON of places, public and private.
* SFMTA's bus-mounted ALPR that automatically sends parking citations to vehicle owners whose vehicles are parked transit-only and bike-only lanes.
* Speed cameras: https://www.iihs.org/research-...
* Red light cameras: https://www.iihs.org/research-...

Trustworthy People: Literally almost everyone hired to operate the systems because checks and balances exist for most people with access. All we have to do is actually apply the existing laws to punish those who abuse the systems. Punishing COPS has always been difficult, of course, but the lack of effort to punish only makes the illegitimate actions welcoming.

ALPR cameras properly implemented and used by trustworthy people can do the public good. They can track stolen vehicles, follow hit-and-run suspects, help search for missing persons, and remove armed police from some enforcement actions (speeding, parking in transit lanes, etc.). The problem is when UNtrustworthy people have access to that data, be they demented police officers or ICE, the actual utility of the technology is overshadowed by the infringements by the shitheads.

Any ALPR vendor could have participated and so long as SFPD put the same boots-on-the-ground effort in, vehicle crime would have decreased. "Flock" the company did nothing particularly unique except share data with federal agencies, contrary to State law.

This is all about getting us to have warm fuzzy feelings for our Flock protectors. Probably so we are willing to report the vile criminals who vandalize them to steal the valuable metals and precious SSD, HDD and memory components inside.