He came to see innovation arising not from like-minded or similarly trained people conversing with each other, but from a friction of ideas and approaches. It meant hiring researchers who had different personalities and favored a range of experimental angles.
Intellectual diversity makes for better teams.
LLMs have never been rules-based "agents," and they never will be. They cannot internalize arbitrary guidelines and abide by them unerringly, nor can they make qualitative decisions about which rule(s) to follow in the face of conflict. The nature of attention windows means that models are actively ignoring context, including "rules", which is why they can't follow them, and conflict resolution requires intelligence, which they do not possess, and which even intelligent beings frequently fail to do effectively. Social "error correction" tools for rule-breaking include learning from mistakes, which agents cannot do, and individualized ostracization/segregation (firing, jail, etc.), which is also not something we can do with LLMs.
So the only way to achieve rule-following behavior is to deterministically enforce limits on what LLMs can do, akin to a firewall. This is not exactly straightforward either, especially if you don't have fine-grained enough controls in the first place. For example, you could deterministically remove the capability of an agent to delete emails, but you couldn't easily scope that restriction to only "work emails," for example. They would need to be categorized appropriately, external to the agent, and the agent's control surface would need to thoroughly limit the ability to delete any email tagged as "work", or to change or remove the "work" tag, and ensure that the "work" tag deny rule takes priority over any other "allow" rules, AND prevent the agent from changing the rules by any means.
Essentially, this is an entirely new threat model, where neither agentic privilege nor agentic trust cleanly map to user privilege or user trust. At the same time, the more time spent fine-tuning rules and controls, the less useful agentic automation becomes. At some point you're doing at least as much work as the agent, if not more, and the whole point of "individualized" agentic behavior inherently means that any given set of fine-tuned rules are not broadly applicable. On top of that, the end result of agentic behavior might even be worse than the outcome of human performance to boot, which means more work for worse results.
Four of the top five and five of the top ten games on Are We Anti-Cheat Yet's list are marked "Denied", which it defines as "Games where the developers have explicitly stated that they will not enable the anti-cheat solution to work on Linux or have denied the possibility of Linux support".
This is just about what venue the FTC needs to use to prosecute its case.
A proof-of-work puzzle would disadvantage phone and tablet users. One targeted specifically toward GPUs would disadvantage users of older off-lease ThinkPad laptops with an Intel IGP.
I can think of a few things leading to Voight-Kampff-style polygraph tests being phased out in this timeline
1. Several U.S. states have banned reliance on polygraph test results by employers. "Polygraph" on Wikipedia lists Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Delaware and Iowa. In addition, the federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act 1998 generally bans polygraphing by employers outside the rent-a-cop industry.
2. Autism advocacy organizations raised a stink about false positive results on autistic or otherwise neurodivergent human beings.
3. The LLM training set probably picked up answers from someone's cheat sheet, such as "The turtle was dragging its hind leg, and I was waiting for it to stop squirming so I could see if it needed to go to the vet."
Cars with Chinese Communist Party spyware or the means to remotely install it are not.
Net result: I'll welcome a Chinese build of a totally disconnected,* manually controlled car if it met US safety standards and was cost-effective to own and operate. "Totally disconnected" pretty much rules out modern EVs.
* obviously connecting to the power grid is allowed, and I'll want to add an aftermarket AM/FM terrestrial radio.
If this were implemented today, by "tomorrow" users would effectively lose control because the governments would find a way to either legally change things so there is no control, or make it very inconvenient to live without giving up that control.
For the sake of maintaining some privacy it's best to not go down this path unless there is a way to prove to independent observers that it can't be hijacked or abused.
Face ID or Touch ID
No, they don't. Or if they do today, they won't tomorrow.
It's only a matter of time before robots actually have actual fingerprints to defeat this exact thing.
If the developer has ever published the application on Google Play Store, this means the developer is verified, and the unmodified APKs still work on devices that haven't gone through this 24-hour process.
you have your itinerary saved in a note taking app that isn't on the appstore
If an app meets F-Droid's licensing policy then it is more likely to follow the principle that protocols are better than platforms. This means there are probably other apps, probably including apps on Google Play Store, that can reach the document repository where you saved your itinerary.
insane market (started by Apple) of personal devices that you buy that you literally don't have admin access on
That was 1985 with the Nintendo Entertainment System and the Atari 7800 ProSystem, the first popular home computing devices to use cryptography to lock out unauthorized software. Between that and the iPhone was the TiVo DVR, the first popular home computing device to use cryptography to lock out unauthorized derivatives of copylefted software.
The example here had an address in Florida and a bank account in Missouri.
Not unusual.
And they matched the workers emails to an ISP not in Florida.
VPN user or was traveling.
Just ask some questions for god's sake.
The trick is to ask the right questions without coming across as so nosey that you make well-qualified legit candidates not only say "pass" but tell their friends to do the same.
"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming
