Well quite. Either making an AI by copying something is copying in which case they're a bunch of criminals ready to go to prison for a thousand years according to how it works for peons, or it's not in which case the Chinese are also doing nothing wrong.

They want it both ways,

Utter fuckers.

LAPD ending deal with company operating license plate-reading cameras (July 11,2026).

And in Michigan, Flock cameras coming down in Westland; councilmember says contract not renewed

It's a state-owned company. Have you forgotten what's still going on in China? In the Xinjiang region, over a million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been in "vocational education and training centers" since 2017. If you think that carrying out a genocide doesn't make you an asshole then you are an asshole.

No but I uh understand the human English language and you mean to imply that is what I am suggesting

You might want to study the English language a bit more. Maybe some history too. The revolutionary US is often held up as an attempt to build a classless society, in contrast to Europe's aristocracy. That's not entirely accurate, the US founders had a bunch of different ideas about classism, and, uh, there's slavery of course, but people like John Adams purposely tried to structure the new government to prevent the class tyranny that the old aristocratic systems suffered from.

TLDR: I was agreeing with you.

It's even funnier when you know that the Russians did the same thing in the 90s.

This is a demonstration. 60 feet is pretty modest, the Russians did 20 m in the 90s and planned 60 m. These guys are aiming for 180 ft (~60 m). Even that is fairly modest by what you could potentially do. The US has 100 m dish antennas in orbit.

I had some interactions with EFF a few years ago that left me sad. They definitely do a lot of good work, but I had thought they would be pretty good at understanding complex technical issues and their nuanced interaction with social and political issues, but my experience was quite the opposite. They're a pretty blunt hammer, mostly focused on rejecting any technological change regardless of its benefits. Even that would be okay if they were at least able to articulate sound objections, but that also didn't seem to be the case.

I was working on Android and participating in the ISO 18013-5 mobile driving license standardization process. I thought it would be a good idea to consult with ACLU and EFF, partly to get their buy-in, but mostly to get their feedback. I thought they might have concerns that I could help to address either in the standard (though, honestly, the European members of the ISO committee were already going above and beyond with privacy protection and abuse protection -- the Germans in particular are incredibly paranoid about such things -- and that's good!) or in the Android infrastructure I was building.

ACLU was great, at least for a while. The reason it was great was because the ACLU representative I was working with was Jon Callas (former. CTO of Silent Circle and PGP Corp, Chief Scientist of PGP Inc.). Jon is brilliant, with a deep and abiding interest in privacy. He was generally impressed with the approach we were taking, and had some good insights for tweaks we could make to tighten it up. Unfortunately Jon only worked with the ACLU for a couple of years, and we struggled to find anyone to engage at all after his departure. I'm not sure he wants to share publicly his reasons for separating, so I won't go into that (though I will point out Jon's article, linked above, is not an official ACLU position).

EFF... not so much. The EFF folks seemed not even to be able to understand what we were building. They kept comparing it to e-Verify (which they think is unambiguously bad) but were unable to articulate precisely what the problems with e-Verify were, or how those might translate to mDLs. I was actively seeking feedback on concerns that I could try to mitigate through good design and implementation. Their response was just a blanket "no, this is all bad" with no thought behind it, and no consideration for the individual privacy improvements that electronic delivery with selective disclosure provide as compared to plastic cards that just lay all of your personal information out there.

My discussions with police were actually far more productive than my discussions with EFF. The cops recommended pro-privacy tweaks that I incorporated -- their concern wasn't actually privacy, mind you, but liability, both financial and legal. The chiefs I spoke with were very concerned that there not be any circumstance in which a police officer might need to touch your phone, because they didn't want to deal with the crap that would ensue when phones were broken, or illegally searched. They were significantly more tech savvy than you might expect, too, and of course they deeply understood highway stops and other police interactions.

But EFF was just frustrating and useless. Which is too bad because I had always had a lot of respect for them and the work they do. I still do, I guess... I just understand now that they have morphed into a typical lawyer-based civil rights organization. Which is good! We absolutely need those! But they lack the technical sophistication I understand they had when founded.

Little late for that. Like 35 years late.

The students had a problem to solve, they used AI to solve it, and it appears to a very high standard.

If this happened in a work environment everyone would be happy itÃ(TM)s saved time and cost, and delivered a solution.

Because the goal/course is to learn a particular topic, not to use AI to solve basic problems. Yeah AI can do better than noobs at many tasks, but you don't become a non noob by using AI to do all the tasks. You remain a noob with AI forever.

The professor doesn't want the problem solved because he doesn't know the answer. It's not like your hypothetical job in that regard. He wants the students to learn stuff and get better.

By far the best people using AI are the ones that know their shit and have learned it and can use AI effectively but don't let it's slop shittiness dominate.

The booster doesn't go to the moon anyway.

I took a few years of French, got a B being able to neither speak, write nor read it. Or understand it spoken. I could basically wing it on a few words and with what crossover there is with English. Didn't cheat, but frankly no idea what you have to not do to get a C.

mon pere est un poubellier

aw yeah he's still got it. B level French right there!

He was not by the way.

If everyone works against the system, the system has a problem. And the problem is not, that the students are cheating, but that cheating seems to be the best option for them ...

Define best I suppose?

The problem is a lot of students lack motivation to do the really hard thing, and are easily distracted. I was one of those, I would have been completely fucked in the era of AI I suspect. I was also at a university where I could get just the right kick up the arse someone like me needed and I had friends who ultimately helped.

I suspect cheaters wouldn't do great under the system I had with AI. Why? Well "homework" a.k.a. tutorial sheets were absolutely 100% mandatory and you went to tutorials a few times a week with tutors who knew you and would talk to you about the work and could ultimately kick you out if you didn't do the work. Unless you are good at bullshitting someone who can spot bullshit upside down, sideways and back to front you will be caught (collaboration is not discouraged in the slightest).

Exams are graded. You need to pass the first year ones, but they don't count to your final grade (provided you pass and are still there).

Problem with that system is it's expensive as fuck, requires deep institutional buy in and exists only in a few places.

Fortunately it kicked me into shape. By the time finals rolled round I had actually (for the first time in my life) put real hours into revision. I spent the whole summer grinding 3 hour maths papers under timed conditions then marking myself from the (often hilariously sparse and frequently hand scrawled) mark sheets which were available for old papers.

I did need to be motivate, taught and slightly threatened to reach that point. It didn't come naturally to me. It certainly benefited me however.

You make a question answering web service and then people pay you to have it answer their questions. How unfair. Oh the humanity.

Well this kind of thing happens. :-) Have a great weekend.

Who ignored prediction markets? They are banned in France, Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal, they are restricted in Spain and Germany. The UK, Ireland and Denmark have a licensing system in place and are looking at taking action against companies not registering.

You do realise that even if the EU was one person we humans are able to do more than one thing at a time right? Why should Facebook get a free pass because it's not your pet project of concern?