I suspect GP's point is that every malware blocker in every browser is likely to treat this kind of script as hostile, except for Chrome because Google are currently nerfing the ability for blockers to intercept hostile scripts in one of the most blatantly user-hostile changes they've ever made.

If Apple play along with Safari then every other browser and its malware blocking plugins are about to be toast in a huge retrograde step for Internet privacy. But not even Cloudflare is going to get away with blocking every iOS device if Apple continues to allow blockers to intercept this kind of script.

Did anyone mention recently that simultaneously controlling both the most popular web browser and several of the most popular ad-supported web properties might be a little anticompetitive, and that it's about time that Google was broken up? It's probably time for that drum to start beating a bit louder again.

What if...

Someone (say someone who was familiar with doxygen and GCC) developed number of comment types, where some stipulated preconditions that must be true for the function to run correctly, postconditions that must be true once the function has run, kernel facilities that the function definitely needs, and kernel facilities that the function definitely doesn't need. These would all be optional for any given function.

A static checker could then validate if the code meets the behaviour expected by the programmer. This is precisely what is done in SPARK, a fork of Ada for high-reliability code. Combined with existing static checker capabilities, this would greatly increase the number of bugs that could be caught with all kinds of tools, AI included.

It could ALSO build a full fine-grained mapping for any fine-grained mandatory access controls system. You'd also want includes that you could import for precompiled libraries. This would allow someone to verify if the code was making unanticipated/undesirable calls but would also make SELinux possible to develop for at the application level.

It would not be trivial. If it was trivial, it would have been done simply because it already IS done in other languages and that makes it "obvious" to anyone who has been programming for a while. However, it should not be massively complicated, simply because you can use AI as the static checker. Once it has a definite set of bounda that must be satisfied, it should be much more capable of knowing what paths would violate those bounds. Which means that the checker stage essentially is trivial today, leaving only the markup stage.

Is to set coursework and exams that are specifically crafted to exploit where AI is weak or prone to hallucinate.

You do not ban cheating, because those who cheat will inevitably find ways to circumvent the ban.

Rather, you exploit the properties of the mechanisms of cheating to ensure that those who actually understand the ideas are marked relatively highly (regardless of whether they reach the textbook conclusion) and whose who do not understand the ideas cannot do well even if they give what is in the textbook.

The interest should not be in precise answers, but in precise use of tools of reasoning and analysis, because this is what actually matters when it comes to understanding. Yes, it means you can't standardise so easily, and you have to devise things in ways that don't penalise intuitive thinkers over methodical thinkers, but you cannot teach a subject properly if you are only concerned about the surface.

Facebook is not in chronological order.

Can we add "surprise and delight" to that list of firing reasons?

They can be called in the same way, but not all of them are as good at working in a particular harness as each other. Anthropics models have been trained to call tools in a certain way, the chinese models may or may not work in a way that is compatible. Tool calling ability (not just whether or not you can do it, but how and when it decides which tools to call and why) differs WILDLY between open models.

National security isn't part of the picture unless these things are running in China, or phoning home. Something that is easy to prevent (for now)

I didn't see a 5.6 option on the Windows client last night.

Haa anyone else observed 5.6 in the wild?

Trump doesn't need to have power, he only needs to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Companies are risk-averse, which is why Anthropic pulled their AI model for a while.

People do not tell the truth about their motives when answering polls. News at 11.

What in the world are you talking about???

"avoiding the homeless" is NOT the reason Americans don't take public transit.

You can get Veracrypt to work with the Mac, via FUSE, but I don't know how safe/robust that is. It's probably more secure than anything Apple has. It's certainly more secure than anything Microspot has.

But, yeah, it's getting extremely irritating that useful stuff is being taken out of commercial OS' and junk put in.

There's no known client, but there is a very good unknown client:
(For those familiar with Kenny Everett...)

https://dev.to/jfscoertzen/cha...
https://snapcraft.io/chatgpt-d...

Whether it has all the official features, I don't know. But that's your best bet.

You can switch back to the "Advanced" or "Standard" models by clicking on your user icon then settings, voice. There is now a drop-down list with: Live, Advanced, and Standard.

Each one is worse than the previous.
Basic:
* Good, monotone

Standard:
* Too much inflexion, uncanny.
* Knows how to pronounce foreign words in the correct accent. So you can use this to practice another language. It can fluently switch back and forth even within a sentence.

Live:
* Overly strong accents, like a young actor hamming it up.
* Doesn't get language accents right, so it is useless for language learning.
* Adds "Hmmm..." and "uh huh" and "Interesting..." as you speak. Sometimes it sounds like a Minecraft villager or Yoda thinking.
* Starts every response with boisterous exclamations and thinking sounds. "Ohhhh... Hmmm uhhhh, oh yeah that's (complex | interesting | fascinating)!"
(The text version does this too, but not nearly so hard and overdone)

I love how the technology advances, but I think OpenAI is overdoing it and the voices get cheesier and more annoying with each version. If a human being talked to me like this I would assume they are being an ass and making fun of me. Or maybe they were high?