Sorry, I misinterpreted your story as a work story with a corporate team mate submitting AI PRs. Lots of those around these days.

Agreed. It's a very expensive way to replace homework.

The CORRECT approach is to make homework voluntary, with no partial credit. Then do in-person oral examinations but only AT THE END OF THE DEGREE (ie the last week of a multi-year schooling process).

This used to be the case in universities and schools for centuries, and was replaced more recently by continuous assessments. Let's go back to the previously proven methods.

Psychologically, it's tougher on students, which is a good thing as it produces more resilient human beings.

Students will do nothing (because they can) in the first year, they will panic in the second year (and many will drop out) and the remaining ones will work extra hard in the third year to pass. All of them will have learned a valuable lesson that they can use in the rest of their life.

Why didn't you just get Claude to "fix it"? It either "fixes it" and you have CYA deniability if it's wrong or it writes a report claiming it "can't be fixed" and you have CYA deniability when you didn't fix it.

AI output should be fought with AI output. It's the easiest way to throw the ball back to the person who didn't do their part correctly.

I recently downgraded from Cable 800MB to starlink. Simply because for some reason at 2pm EVERY SINGLE DAY my ping times with charter would go from around 30/ms to 100-1000/ms and it lasted for a few hours. I work from home and that was unusable. The only other "broadband" available was starlink. So now I'm much slower in the 100-200MB range, but overall we haven't noticed much difference.

So I'd say, yeah, you don't have to go all the way up to gigabit to be considered broadband.

The falls from windows are for those who fled the country and think they are safe.

It's a venerable tradition going back to the old Trotsky days.

That's bonkers. The concept of communism didn't exist when that country was founded. Try again.

The Dumb Design Of Modern Cars

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Wait. No. I guess *they* won instead.

The problem with this argument, from the shop's point of view, is that the UK is in the middle of a shoplifting epidemic. The policing resources simply aren't there to deal with small scale (or even flagrant and much larger scale) shoplifting. It now seems to be rare for police officers to attend reports of shoplifting at all. And so effectively shoplifting becomes legalised, which is obviously hurting the big chain stores financially and potentially devastating for smaller shops.

Shops are trying to find some way to respond to this to protect themselves. They typically tell staff, even security staff, not to get physical with shoplifters as they walk out, not least because the risk of something worse happening and the business becoming liable for it is significant. But then the shoplifters know this and some of them will just walk in and openly empty a shelf into a bag and walk out again without paying because they know no-one will try to stop them.

Shops also know that our court system is completely overwhelmed at the moment and there is little chance of bringing any successful civil action to recover damages from shoplifters who aren't even being arrested by the police and put through the criminal justice system.

So what do they have left? Basically, they're trying to spot the "usual suspects" and refuse them entry in the first place, which is a less risky proposition in terms of potential for physical violence and quite effective because a lot of shoplifting is done by the same people, or they're trying to make it more physically difficult to steal goods, for example by using locking systems or keeping high value items behind counters where customers can't just pick them up. But these systems aren't perfect, far from it, and what we're discussing here today is one of the significant problems.

Obviously this kind of technology can have very bad consequences, as we see here. I don't think it should be used if it's not highly reliable, given the potential harm done in cases where it gets something wrong. But I do have some sympathy with the shops who are looking for something -- anything -- to reduce the threat they're facing because the rule of law has failed in retail settings.

That argument is neither informative nor cogent.

Nobody is forcing the AI companies to destroy any books. The intention is that their AIs don't read the books without permission. If the AI companies don't know how to do that, then they should not read the books in the first place. That's the intention of copyright law. The right to copy belongs to the author and/or assignee. It doesn't belong to the AI companies, and never has.

See also: "Your honour, the Law forced me to steal money in secret, because if I stole it in public I would have been arrested for stealing!"

Incorrect. NVIDIA owns a figment, since OpenAI has no market valuation.

Feel free to keep trolling about how you know "business" though, it's entertaining.

A farmer from 1452 just texted me on my iPhone. He wants to know what he should dump on his roots to increase the yield?

While I can see how you arrived at that, I don't think they're all the amoral actors you describe.

Zuck has shown some changes in the last couple years, though I agree he's largely amoral.

Musk has a very peculiar set of morals which might be described as pragmatism or amorality, but he's always been very focal in both action and word about both ethics and responsibility.

You could probably accurately describe them all as transhumanists with varying degree of consistency.

If there's a crisis of trust - which there is - it's almost certainly largely provoked by Amodei. The guy has been a regular prophet of doom regarding AI: it's going to take all the jobs, it's dangerous and going to cause all sorts of disasterous side effects socially, economically, and politically. No wonder people are untrusty.

Pair that with the obscene levels of what appears to be state-level anti-AI and anti-datacenter propaganda, and you've got the current situation. The amount of absurd claims I've seen about datacenters and AI, from people who should know better - everything from completely false narratives about water use, land grabs, power use, and so on. The truth is, an AI DC doesn't uses less water than a Cosco and about as much electricity as a comparable industrial facility, or a similarly sized restaurant.

For anyone who thinks it's ridiculous that the US can't reproduce the Apollo missions, consider this: we can't (due to environmental factors) produce wrought iron anymore (because there are no longer any facilities setup to do so), as a species, and therefore, could not build the Bay Bridge in San Francisco (and I'm sure, any number of others, like the Brooklyn bridge).

The same limitations apply here. They have to redesign the vehicle on first principles because the foundational engineering (not scientific understanding) being used no longer exists. Most people simply do not realize how precariously our technological world hangs in the balance. It's why highly advanced ancient cultures collapsed, in large degree: they couldn't just start at the lower level again before working their way back to 'advanced civilization', they had to start all the way at zero again.

Here's a fun one I like playing with my kids, kind of the nerdy science version of the polysci "go back in time to kill Baby Hitler: which one scientific understanding would you bring back in time to Ancient Rome/the American Revolution/the 1950s/etc. and why? Dollars to donuts they'll say something like "the lightbulb" and not consider that it's at least 3 distinct discoveries and inventions, nevermind the engineering.