Having resisted the vim plugins in IDEs for several years, I don't think you can get around just as easily without, and certainly not in a web browser text box. Simple editors (and even Notepad++) don't do things like selecting/changing text within brackets, deleting/copying/modifying text until the next comma (or semicolon, etc), navigation/action to the next sentence or the start of this sentence, and quick and easy repeated actions. That's not to mention the capabilities I don't use every day, like multiple copy buffers and macros.

It's also continually ironic that the companies that used the world's knowledge without compensation to train their models are complaining when another company uses their models to train models (though they almost certainly are paying for the privilege).

I just found out the most interesting thing I can do with copilot at work: turn it off. In VS code, the bottom right copilot button has a "snooze" option. I use it because inserted garbage comments break my train of thought.

I don't say it's not useful. But it does drive me nuts sometimes.

The DSLR doesn't do video conferencing or play music, so I think this decision may be more about that sort of feature.

But cameras? I wouldn't be surprised if the autofocus and dynamic range (via automatic HDR) of a high end phone were better than an old DSLR. For nighttime detail, my phone can rival a well respected zoom lens on a camera from this decade, and the results don't appear oversharpened or otherwise defective. I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't done the test myself. Of course, neither is great. Cameras prefer good light.

It being used as a weapon isn't one of the issues. Astronauts already have plenty of things that can be used as weapons. In fact there issued weapons in case of attack by sky bears like Ursa.

To clarify, my comment refers not to the freeloader/customer distinction but to the exorbitant cost of paid YouTube and the fact that they are trying to artificially increase its consumer value by making free YouTube a shittier experience.

Isn't there something faintly disgusting about a company capturing as much value as they can from a service, to the extent that it's barely providing any value to the consumer?

I'm a big fan of capitalism, but I'm concerned that clever firms are sucking the joy out of life.

For example, if a ride company figures out the maximum I'd pay for a ride and charges that amount, there's no good for me in that transaction. The company added and took in equal measure.

Yep, eyes and ears and control mechanisms they guide.

The auditory signals bypass the traffic lights entirely and go to the sensor networks that normally respond to traffic light signals.

Yeah, I'd rather be warned privately that my code likely has some issues than have it pointed out publicly! Of course for educational purposes some people need to make public mistakes, but it need not be as many as are doing it now.

Your conclusion does not follow. I think you accurately described LLMs as far as my layman's sense goes, but you need to understand agency to understand what is or is not an agent. Hint: nobody understands what makes various kinds of agents, except moral agents, because that's not actually about agency.

If you consider that this was a scenario where stopping was impossible, it's actually extremely rare. I've never even heard gossip about someone striking a pedestrian crossing the street, nor about a pedestrian being struck. (Bikers, yes, but that's a different scenario.)

You've been trained for it but you've never encountered it, and you don't know whether your reflexes are good enough.

Btw, I don't appreciate being put on the side of pimps and organized crime. But it's such BS when people read a report like this and go on to write horrifying stuff that's actually not implied by the report.

You're right, my comment was totally out of line. I'm so used to seeing "yeah but what about X" (where X is some sort of trap) that I didn't pay attention to the context of your comment

And thank you for providing the data. It appears their definitions don't agree with yours. Your statement says "unwilling", but the paper you cited says monetary exchange with no other ethical beach is sufficient to meet the definition of "trafficking". My read is that you described a scenario that is not implied by the evidence.

Isn't a lot of that just the consequence of communication? Where do we draw the line about blaming the tool versus the content?

(Yes, this is the Section 230 argument again.)