P1?!? Is that you?

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.

The military implications are obvious. Think Ukraine. If you suspect the enemy is trying to infiltrate on a dark night along several kilometers of frontline, you light up the scene while launching a bunch of low-cost FPV drones, and those infiltrators are about to have a bad day.

You *can* spot infiltrators in the dark with IR cameras, but it requires much more expensive drones and isn't usually as effective, hence the preference for night operations. Plus, there's IR camouflage, with varying degrees of success. But it usually makes you stand out like a sore thumb under illumination (you're basically wearing a tent).

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.

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.

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.

This is a small prototype, not a full-scale mirror.

Also, ignoring that, pretending light brighter than the full moon is useless is... silly? For generating power, sure, but for illumination, it absolutely is not.

Yes, the manufacturer of the self-driving system. People have been asking this silly question for a decade now, even though there is no other answer. Google, at least, has stated publicly on many occasions that they are liable for the actions of their self-driving vehicles.

No, they did not. In fact they said exactly the opposite, that the cars are never remotely-piloted. They said that the cars occasionally request guidance, which means something like "Should I go this way or that way?", then the car acts on the answer.

I quit using Windows in 2000, and it's been at least a decade, if not more, since I ran into anything like that.

so driver-assist isn't a thing.

I think you have misunderstood the OP. The cars are remote controlled with very fancy driver assist for the remote driver. IOW, they run on assist say 99% of the time and then the driver (remote, not a passenger) has to step in.

That feels like an odd thing to be frightened of. It's not Mars where there are minutes of latency. Why would the Philippines - specifically - be any more (or less) concerning than if the drivers were in a building a kilometer away from the vehicle?

Neither is great per-se: suspect it would be quite hard to pilot a car well using a remote link (eyes are still surprisingly good compared to cameras).

Secondly, yeah the Philippines is worse. It's 13000k away meaning ~0.1s lag just due to the speed of light, never mind network lag etc. There's also going to more of that due to more hops.

Thirdly, well OK, US driving standards are terrible and the test is almost impossible to fail so no real loss there compared to a Philippines trained driver.

Okay, I'm no fan of these things and wouldn't volunteer to ride in one but really, this is exaggeration. The actual safety records have shown they're marginally better than human drivers. Sure, there are outliers, exceptions and downright frustrating things like what this article is about but as far as I've had any information, they're just that... outliers. Human drivers are the ones I really worry about, personally.

But that also makes no sense: if they're safety record is barely better than humans, then they're basically the same level of worry.

I've long been putting forward the idea that self driving cars ought to be more safe, because humans are shit. But there's more it turns out than just direct safety. If they're causing real problems with emergency vehicles at a rate worse than humans, then that will cause harm, but not in the car crash sense.

Anyway whoever thought they're the future of city transport needs their head examined, frankly. Or really has a fetish for sitting in traffic.

Dude, you're being ridiculous.

That's clearly not the intention here if the end result of passing through the luxury terminal is boarding the same airplane as those masses, and it is. It's obviously just to make the airport part of the travel experience nicer, in ways that would be too expensive to apply to the regular terminal. It's the same thing as airport lounges (I'm a Delta Sky Club member myself, a privilege I pay money for so I have the option of a nicer place to wait, the availability of hot showers on long trips, food, drinks, etc.) just scaled up to cover the whole airport process... right up to boarding time when the people get shuttled to board with everyone else.

LOL. I specifically mentioned that I use correct capitalization... so of course I screwed up the capitalization.

Tiny, tiny minority. And if you think you want that, you're wrong!

Also, it's worth pointing out that finding matching pages in a database of pages is indeed trivial -- and building that is utterly insufficient, because for any query that trivial matching algorithm will return a huge number of pages. Thousands, even for the most obscure technical terms, millions or tens of millions for more-common words.

The hard part of building a web search engine (and it's very, very hard) is ranking the results once you've found them, so the thing the user wants is on top. That was, in fact, Google's big innovation: PageRank was Larry Page's idea for how to rank pages by examining the link structure of the web and prioritizing pages with more inbound links. That specific mechanism quickly broke down when SEO companies began exploiting its structure, but in addition to being gameable, PageRank had another problem: What if the search terms are used in multiple domains? The classic example is the query "python spacing". Am I looking for information about how large an enclosure I need for a captive python, or am I asking about indentation in programming?

So Google, and every other competent search engine, has shifted towards supporting queries in natural language, as well as using contextual information when available, such as the user's search history -- in the "python spacing" example, unless the user is a zookeeper who also writes code, their search history will point to the correct domain.

If you're writing queries as lists of terms that you want matched in pages you're doing it wrong. You'd actually be unhappy with a search engine that gave you exactly that, and you're also artificially reducing the effectiveness of the much better search engine you're using. Try typing questions instead, e.g. "How much space does a 10 foot Python need?" (correct spelling, capitalization and punctuation are not really required, but I use them anyway). This will give the engine more contextual clues about what kind of thing you're actually looking for and you'll get better results.

That said, it should be pointed out that if what you really, really want is "include only these words, exactly as I spelled them", Google will give you that. Just put them in quotation marks.