It has been awhile since I used facebook, but I remember having a similar problem at one point. I was already subscribed to a bunch of cute animal and dashcam crash video pages. Then I aggressively viewed every one that showed up in my feed skipping over everything else. At least at the time, I was able to rewire my feed in about a day. Don't try to filter out the crap, just make sure you communicate to the app you like videos of cats falling off a table. After your feed becomes full of that crap, you can curate a better one.

How did this obvious AI slop get modded +4 insightful?

Sorry, I was responding to the part of:

I called out at the end that they are afraid of what happens if someone else can claim copyright. But LLM code not having a copyright, if true, is not the issue.

That isn't how copyright works. The part of the code written by humans is copyrighted regardless of the amount of AI generated code there is. This includes any modifications (rewrites) of AI code. It is not required for the distributor of the code to specify which parts are copyrighted by them and which aren't. If you know which parts are AI, you are free to use them without worrying about the GPL. In the real world, you don't actually know which parts are AI and they are under no obligation to tell you. GCC is actually concerned about the code generated by the LLM being copyrighted by whoever owned the copyright on the training data.

This text was placed because the author believed it would be followed. That is malicious intent. It does not matter if an AI system would be "worse than useless" if it followed the instruction. "A text file that just contains nothing but `rm -rf /` isn't malicious." If you expect that command to be run, and you believe it will damage the user, it would indeed be malicious. Context matters. Is this in a file with a list of commands to block or is in this in an initrd script? There is a difference between not baby-proofing and creating boobytraps. Setting boobytraps, even on your own property, is illegal for a reason. The "as is" clause will not legally, or morally, protect you from intentional sabotage. The user having to do something stupid also won't protect you.

Any actor malicious enough to embed something that will cause damage to their users should not be trusted to write software used by anyone. Regardless of your opinion of AI, this showed a lack of judgement that should make everyone rethink using jqwik.

Nothing wrong with having big long-term goals.

SpaceX wants to go to mars. In the meantime, they have greatly reduced the cost to space and Starlink is looking very promising.

As mentioned in TFS Deepmind has delivered massive power savings for Google data centers and improved maps. Not mentioned is they have improved Google's voice synthesis. They have also been working on many medical uses of their technology including detecting many different diseases and protein folding. In protein folding they have moved the state of the art forward significantly.

Also, while not directly useful for products/business they have gotten good press for beating the best players at go and also having the same concepts be applied to beating chess.

Their goal seems to be to apply the same concepts to as many fields as possible to eventually create general purpose artificial intelligence. But that doesn't matter when they are making cool products along the way at a relatively fast clip.

The idea of this is to provide a cost and performance comparable to other clouds. Until now, your only option was a lower latency and better quality connection for more money. This is really useful if you have customers all over the world and are serving directly to a user's web browser, but just over priced for everything else. This new change allows customers to spend a lot less money on batch and non-critical jobs while still having access to the "premium" connection for user facing traffic. Disclaimer: I work at Google, but my opinions are my own and do not represent Google.

Its stock holders get an equal number of shares in the new company. So if you own 10 shares of ebay, you will now own 10 shares of ebay and 10 shares of paypal. You can then buy and sell each one independently of the other. For some companies, the whole company is greater than the sum of its parts. In this case, the powers that be (the board members), have decided that each one would be worth more on its own than bundled together.

This could be because they are interested in acquisition. It could be they are afraid want to take risks with one or both of them and are afraid of one hurting the other. And it could be for another reason entirely.

We don't know because the board has not told us the reason. However, they did manage to use quite a few words to not tell us thre reason:

If you assume that all people are the same, that is the case. Fortunately, we are not.

Some people are worth more than others. While job title and experience correlate to ability/worth, they are only one factor. A star programmer at Buffer will be in higher demand elsewhere even if he has less experience than a more senior programmer. You probably want to pay him more to avoid someone else from giving him a better offer. By paying only by the factors listed, you are undervaluing your best employees which makes it more likely they will jump ship.

In a perfect world, DNS would not have been setup in such a way that everyone would be using the same one. Here is my proposal to god so he can go back and change history.

ICANN makes one tld, I don't care the name, perhaps .icann. They become the dominant system and everyone has them setup as the default. They may have com.icann, net.icann, etc. However, this is not necessary.

I then decide ICANN is doing something stupid. They are handling it all wrong and I can do better. I decide to make .edu which will be so much better than .edu.icann. It is EASY and normal to install another TLD from another company.

ICANN is very US centric and follows US laws. China decides they want to control DNS... fine. All they need to do is make there own and then mandate that computers sold in the country use it. I disagree with this... but it would not affect the rest of the internet.

I use google very often. Google has a tld. I install it and I can now can go to maps.google instead of maps.google.icann.

US blocks the pirate bay dns. Good thing I have .pirate tld installed. And if I didn't, I could look up the dns info on some central hub.

What about conflicts? How do we handle ports? Name conflicts would happen occasionally, people would need to be smart enough to ignore them.

How can you trust tlds? You get them from official websites. You assign trust as necessary. People tend to trust a couple big ones because everyone uses them.

Smart people will add dns info to the links they post. For example dns-FFFFFFFF://http://google.icann. In this case, the dns master IP is included in the link (as a hex string). Because of fishing attempts, a browser will point out with a glaring error message (ssl like) that something is horribly wrong if one of your known TLDs has a different dns hex. People will use bookmarks or add the TLD if they so choose.

This is in my opinion of the perfect system. Decentralized and left in the user's hands. Some may think I give users too much credit, but the end result would be a couple big guys and a common idea that you only accept tlds from big companies. Centralization would naturally occur, but it would not be forced.

-- Stephen

I am not sure if I am a google fanboy or not. I just use the best product which is often Google. I use GMail, Chromium, and Google Search. I have android on my phone/laptop and contributed to the Go Programming Language. What makes me probably not a google fanboy is I would drop any one of their products in a heartbeat if I found something better. Looking at the changes the EU wants, my answer to all but one is that I would personally be upset if they did what the EU wanted.

None of the EU's business. I like to see results from other services. It is useful.

I like to see user reviews in my search results. I find it useful.

This I agree with. It is wrong for Google to do these types of things. I would probably still not want the government to stop them... but that is because I lean libertarian. As much as I dislike anti-trust laws, this is what they are supposed to stop. I will save arguments over anti-trust laws for another day. But the other changes the EU wants are for Google to make their product less useful out of fairness to other companies. I don't care if the fact that Google has the money and power to make a better product makes it harder for others to compete. That is no reason to regulate them into removing features.

You do not quite understand. It is entirely possible. Please read up on refundable tax credits. When I lived with my mother, a single mother of two who was a secretary, she had truly negative tax liability. This was not withholding. We subtracted withholding before coming to this conclusion. She makes some extra cash working for H&R Block (doing taxes) during tax season, so she is not tax illiterate. So for who chose negative? I imagine there are many people who get negative tax liabilities. But that percentage is a bit too high based on the general population of slashdot. Probably some idiots who did not understand that you need to subtract withholding. Also, for anyone who wonders why the US is in so much debt, this does not help.

The QOTD at the bottom of the page so perfectly matched this story.