Apparently you were one of the good ones. But probably not.

Yeah, even if a calculator is not intelligent, it's still useful.

AI doesn't have to be intelligent to be useful. (Although it's annoying to call it AI, but that's a topic for a different discussion).

Many modern UI experts only know how to use user stories. Thus, everything they touch becomes a clone of a Microsoft Wizard.

I'm not a flat-earther, I'm not a moon hoaxer, but this headline really confused me.

It's actually the kind of project I might be willing to help contribute to if I were bored. (Of course, I'd try to find an open source project to help first, but making it fun would be enough payment).

Early LLM copyright lawsuits failed because of lack of clarity on what was copied or how the copied data was being used.

This lawsuit seems to be stronger in those regards so it might have a different result. It is worth watching, but no copyright laws were written with LLMs in mind so judges will have to determine how to interpret the law.

And Wikipedia is still better.

Have a 5000 line citation. It's not hard, but not a common case.

The fallacy is really just a lack of rigor. If you can't show that each step inevitably (or even probably) leads to the next, then it's a fallacy.

But if you can show that each stage along the slope leads to the next, then it's not a fallacy it's modus ponens. (If each step leads to the next with a certain probability, then you can calculate the probability of the final outcome).

I read all the links, skimmed through the code, and I'm still not sure what the issue is.

The modern approach is to use the abstraction/filtration/comparison test to figure out which parts are derived (including the quote) and which parts are original. Once the derived parts are determined, the defendant can assert a "fair use" defense if desired, and the courts will decide.

Has right to read, doesn't use it. A true American. I salute him.

It's kind of sad because the skilled employees will generally do what the employer wants if the company is clear about what it wants/needs. Problems come up when the engineers don't understand the needs of the employer, not because of rebelliousness. There is no need for a compromise here.

Is that really true? I would have thought it was website programming.

A lot of companies don't want good programmers, they want programmers they can control. Even if that means hiring a lot more of them.