Lots of great points. The first thing a D president will do is fire all the R appointees, not just the traditional political appointees who leave when the President does. Then the next R does the same, resulting in a very unstable governance environment that will negatively impact the economy as companies can't plan long term in such a regulatory environment. Then there's the whole "lets get revenge on the other side by prosecuting/investigating them" payback game.

Very true, but one side is gloating over their wins and will be screaming when the very environment they created is turned on them. Not good in any way.

Interesting insight. I suspect the results are due to the data used for trading. Unless it scrapes and is able to parse a large number of languages any output will be biased to its data and provide a viewpoint slanted to one geopolitical area. In addition, if one POV is overrepresented I think it would tend to favor that one, even if the amount of data is not well correlated with the % of a population who holds that view.

"It logically follows if there are no cute cats there can be no cute cat videos" -- ChatGPT

Which should be outlawed to prevent such limits to transferring, that was teh sort of penalties I was referring to as well. If teh H1B truly has very difficult to find skills let them come in and compete at true free market rates once sponsored; a year would be the time for calculating ROI.

The problem I see is unless there is a fast track green card process it will take a lot longer to get them onboard. One change I'd make is let the H1-B holder be able to transfer it to a new employer after a year without enalty. That would make companies be a lot more selective and likely raise wages to the point US workers are competitive.

Thanks for the clarification. Another interesting issue is the regionality of trademarks in such cases, something colleges ran into when sports all of a sudden made school's trademarks nationally recognized and schools discovered multiple schools using the same ones.

I wonder if some of the confusion on /. is the result of confusing the now public domain movie and the trademarked character.

I'm guessing that would likely fall under parody exemptions, Steamboat Willy isn't the first to get such treatment.

It holds up in some cases, not in others, and calculating an average muddles that.

Personally, I use AI coding assists for two purposes quite successfully: a) more intelligent auto-complete and b) writing a piece of code using a common, well understood algorithm (i.e. lots of sources the AI could learn from) in the specific programming language or setup that I need.

It turns out that it is much faster and almost as reliable to have the AI do that then finding a few examples on github and stackoverflow, checking which ones are actually decent, and translating them myself.

Anything more complex than that and it starts being a coin toss. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's a waste of time. So I've stopped doing that because coding it myself is faster and the result better than babysitting an AI.

And when you need to optimize for a specific parameter - speed, memory, etc. - you can just about forget AI.

Hey, industry, I've got an idea: If you need specific, recent, skills (especially in the framework-of-the-month class), how about you train people in them?

That used to be the norm. Companies would hire apprentices, train them in the exact skills needed, then at the end hire them as proper employees. These days, though, the training part is outsourced to the education system. And that's just dumb in so many ways.

Universities should not train the flavour of the moment. Because by the time people graduate, that may have already shifted elsewhere. Universities train the basics and the thinking needed to grow into nearby fields. Yes, thinking is a skill that can be trained.

Case in point: When I was in university, there was one short course on cybersecurity. And yet that's been my profession for over two decades now. There were zero courses on AI. And yet there are whitepapers on AI with me as a co-author. And of the seven programming languages I learnt in university, I haven't used even one of them ever professionally and only one privately (C, of course. You can never go wrong learning C. If you have a university diploma in computer science and they didn't teach you C, demand your money back). Ok, if you count SQL as a programming language, it's eight and I did use that professionally a few times. But I consider none of them a waste of time. Ok, Haskell maybe. The actual skill acquired was "programming", not a particular language.

Should universities teach about AI? Yes, I think so. Should they teach how to prompt engineer for ChatGPT 4? Totally not. That'll be obsolete before they even graduate.

So if your company needs people who have a specific AI-related skill (like prompt engineering) and know a specific AI tool or model - find them or train them. Don't demand that other people train them for you.

FFS, we complain about freeloaders everywhere, but the industry has become a cesspool of freeloaders these days.

The number of people isn't the problem here.

The "started every" is.

How did they not catch that during development and found a solution? I mean, the meme's where a TV ad starts Alexa and orders 10 large pizzas are a decade old now.

Judging from what I've seen, if WDC trademarked the original Steamboat Willie character and renewed the mark as required, it has been in use continuously via pins, toys, etc..

I'm sure M&M would have replied with a clear answer if they represented Disney and the question was put to them. It seems just like another ploy to get news coverage. The more their name is out there, the more people know them and maybe call them when injured. I suspect they have lwayers smart enough to hav answered the question without asking Disney. As for Disney, I suspect they will do anything they can to protect their trademarks.

Tea, it wasn't meant as a shot at librarians but rather how AI is making people view them (and clickbait).

Good point. The reinforcing nature of AI do to prompt choices as well as design is an insidious feature that is no doubt viewed a a positive by companies since it keeps people coming back.

It think it's not just the authoritative nature but the belief that somehow AI is unbiased in the answers it provides. I have friends who truly believe, because AI has so much data the answers must be correct and unbiased, and GIGO is no longer a problem even though they are fishing in a data sewer.

There is no such thing as a cute cat. ChatGPT told me so so that must be right.

International law works as long as the major powers want it to work.

I suspect part of it is also being told something they asked for is incorrect and taking it a being told they are wrong and thus taking it personally, even when though that is not the librarian's intent.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will accept as correct whatever output a computer provides while disbelieving someone who is likely an expert in their field or at least has information available to validate or to attempt to correct the computer's output. I suspect AI's flattering way of providing answers makes people feel more connected to their 'friend' versus some random librarian and thus get defensive when told something doesn't exist.

If it is an application fee that could at least restrict firms, such as largeIT consultancies, from filing a lot of applications, because it is cheap, and increasing their chances of getting a visa in the lottery.