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 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.

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.

Years back I was interviewing people for a coding position. We went through the standard tech stuff and then did a bit of project to see how they thought. We said (this is circa 2009'ish I think) - imagine you're on a team creating a new phone. You don't have time to test all the functions, so which would be your top two functions to ensure working?

All a bit Kobayashi Maru - obviously you can't release a phone testing only two functions, but we wanted to see what they'd prioritise. The very best answer we received was this one: "I would make sure it has the ability to call emergency services." Their thinking was that this was likely the most critical feature of a phone for both a user, and also for the manufacturer to avoid being sued. Absolutely great answer.

And yet here we are, with the post above. Taking the thinking of this interviewee - the ability to work with emergency services is important for general society, for the user of the vehicle (so they don't get in trouble) and for the manufacture of the vehicle (so they don't get fined/sued/both). Absolutely critical.

Likely bots.

This is wrong and literally dangerous.

Firstly a lot of people don't really understand the whole idea of a hybrid marketplace where it is a legit brand but also hosts ones selling dangerous crap. Especially most people don't realise that it's somehow fine for Amazon to sell stuff which is illegal. Amazon is hosting it, providing the storefront, processing the sale and payment. To most people that's selling.

And even if you do know, it's really hard to identify what's merely cheep cheese and actively dangerous. I'm confident with electrical stuff, being an engineer, I know what creepage is and so on, but this is so far beyond what most people know. Even generally competent people have a hard job spotting this from things outside their area of expertise. i doubt I could spot a dangerous ladder.

Perhaps a spacecraft could also use Solâ(TM)s magnetic field to get to Mars. There are robust magnetic fields at Sol, Jupiter, Earth, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Ganymede, and Mercury.

Tell me you dont care about your members without telling me you dont care about your members

They trust me, the dumb fucks.

He's ALREADY told people explicitly he doesn't care.

The whole process that split AT&T's System V and BSD should bear some weight here, at some point there was an agreement that, once BSD rewrote the few offending portions, AT&T had no claim anymore.

Frankly I'm surprised that the settlement between SCO and IBM didn't include verbiage that this was a done deal with no right for any successor-entity to bring this up again.

There has been a wild amount of fabrication in published papers coming to light over the past decade

Some yeah.

because funding dries up when the outcome isn't what the people controlling the funds wanted.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

My recollection is that PJ finally ended Groklaw over privacy / anonymity concerns about email. But Iâ(TM)m sure she must have also felt burned out by that point.

My recollection from the old Groklaw days is that the heart of the disagreement turned out to not even be code, but API definitions. SCO claimed to own the definitions of some APIs, but (when finally pushed to be very specific) not their implementations.

So FreeCAD can also do programming. I did like OpenSCAD, especially minkowski sum. Downside though is it works on meshes not curves.