In what way? Surely something like the source not quite saying what was cited, mixing up citations (meaning to reference Joe but citing Hill for some claim instead, when both are referenced in the article in general); like, not just inventing them from scratch because it makes the text look like the training data, right?
I also wrote an interactive blog post sharing my thoughts on what I think makes a better markdown streaming UI here: https://nimeshnayaju.com/markdown. The library was a result of those opinions and thoughts.
Had a colleague submit a paper with literal AI slop left in the text, got hit with a nasty revision request. Check your drafts before you submit, people. The reviewers will find it.
That is fascinating to me. Especially in English composition. The flip side is if it's an adjunct prof making $4k per class (English typically pays poorly) then she's doing the hourly rate calculation and thinking that AI is going to help her with the students. So, a potential solution to this is for the universities to have the willingness to pay their professors and ask for no AI (at least in this type of class) in exchange.
> exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine
Shouldn't that have been relatively clear to all parties involved? Maybe not to the defendant, who's apparently clueless.
The AI platform is not an attorney. A defendant's communications with an AI platform are therefore not communications between a client and their attorney, nor will the AI output constitute attorney "work product" because the AI platform is not an attorney.
Doesn't really come across as a novel problem, aside from AI being involved. I'm sure countless defendants have made the stupid mistake of talking about the facts of their case to persons other than their attorney, and those communications came back to bite them in the ass when discovered.
If the vessels were legally flagged, both of these are indeed actions of a blockade!
You're just ignoring the fact that the ships the US seized were flying false flags and are subject to seizure regardless of the embargo.
And in the case of the Ocean Mariner, the ship wasn't forcibly turned away by the coast guard. They turned away on their own volition when the realized they were being tracked. The could have continued to Cuba if they wanted to, but that would trigger retaliatory tariffs.
> The Cuban Missile Crisis doesn’t even meet your standard.
Yes it was a blockade! The US military deployed its forces with orders to seize Soviet ships bound for Cuba (though they turned away before any ships were actually boarded).
It is pretextual for a lot of foreign students, I don't know how anyone can deny that in good faith. Its definitely not a value judgements because I never said whether it's a good or bad thing on net. Sometimes good things have to be smuggled through a pretext.
Nobody is moving the goalposts. You just poorly choose words.
I don’t think you actually understand the problem space of what you’re describing or you wouldn’t call it DRM.
And as such I don’t think you actually have a grasp of what is affected. But you’ve deles that everyone who doesn’t think it’s the same level of issue as you is somehow beneath your intellect based on your other comments.
Again, you missed the operand point: There are actually literally zero instances of companies enforcing a "we own all the code you write" clause against contributions to an open source project. For all the millions of software engineers and trillions of lines of code that have been written, there are zero cases of this happening. The reason why is because it is possible that a clause like this is unenforceable under these conditions; we don't know, its never been tried in court. It'd be a legal mess, and at the end of the day the most the company could (extremely unrealistically) lay claim to is some open source project they could already download for free (again, even that is unrealistic; more realistically is that they could lay claim to their employee's contributions, and the project would have to unwind them, but even that is extremely unlikely).
A clause like this might be unenforceable, but if you know anything about US employment contracts, you'll know: Companies will write EVERYTHING in these things. They don't give a shit. They don't care if its unenforceable. If it were socially agreeable they'd write in a clause forcing you to give up your first born child to the corporation, and then you'd say "Uh, no, you have no right to require that" and they'd say "Oh right yeah ok that's fine" and that's it. That is how employment contracts LITERALLY work. They just vibe write shit in them, because they can. Meanwhile employees treat them like like live ammo in a loaded gun the corporation is holding to their head.
Nine times out of ten if anything in an employment contract is going to be used against you, its going to be used to fire you, and that's where it ends. In that remaining 10%, its cases like "intentional corporate or international espionage where tens millions of dollars were lost to a competitor" It is actually fucking hilarious that you think anyone would want to spend the bajillions of dollars it costs to send lawyers into court because a little software engineer contributed some code to kubernetes at 4pm instead of 6pm. Bro: You're not that important. No one cares about you. Contribute the code.
As a programmer, the solution to "int a = 5; a = a++ + ++a;" is to decide what you result you wanted, and write code that will produce that result, and probably to pass options to the compiler that tell it to detect this kind of problem and print a warning. (On my system, the result happens to be 12; if that's what I want, I'll write "int a = 12;").
But if you have an existing program that includes that code, it can be useful to look into the actual behavior (for all the compilers that might be used to compile the code, with all possible options, on all possible target systems). Fixing the code should be part of that process, but you might still have running systems with the old bad code, and you need to understand the risks.
But producing some numeric result is not the only possible behavior, even in real life. Compilers can assume that the code being compiled does not have undefined behavior, and generate code based on that assumption. The results can be surprising.
As for formatting your disk, that's not just a theoretical risk. If a program has enough privileges that it can format your disk deliberately, it's possible that it could do so accidentally due to undefined behavior (for example, if a function pointer is corrupted).
Terence Tao had a nice talk from the Future of Mathematics conference posted yesterday [0] that shapes a lot of my own feelings on this matter.
The short of it is he argues how first to correctness shouldn't be the only goal / isn't a great optimisation incentive. Presentation and digestibility of correct results is a missing 1/3 when you've finished generation and verification. I completely agree with him. You don't just need an AI generated proof of the Reimann Hypothesis. You would really like it to be intentional and structured for others to understand.
A really beautiful quote I learned of in the talk is this:
> "We are not trying to meet some abstract production quota of definitions, theorems, and proofs. The measure of our success is whether what we do enables people to understand and think more clearly and effectively about math." - William Thurston
I just put Anubis in front of my self-hosted forge this morning because AmazonBot had helped itself to 750 GiB (!) of traffic to my public repos this month!
> If you want actual improved working conditions, there is only one path that has proven to work and it involves organizing with other workers while resisting your bosses through whatever means you feel comfortable with.
Clearly that isn't true. I've worked at plenty of companies that treated me very well that didn't require organized resistance to get. I was literally talking about two of them in the comment you're responding to. You mention "there is a reason why you don't get time-and-a-half when you're on-call as a tech worker", but I've worked at companies who did that. Shit, Google does that. Your claim that "the only way" forward is for workers or organize and resist is undermined a bit by the fact that one of the largest tech companies on earth already does the thing that you're claiming can only be achieved by organized resistance.
If you like the idea of unionization that's great. I'm not particularly against it for other people, but it's not a magic wand. I spent a chunk of my life working as a checker at a unionized grocery store and I've never felt more like just a piece of meat than at that job and that feeling came from both the way my employer treated me AND the way the union treated me.
Like I hinted at before, I don't really want to join a union. I'm not going to stand in other people's way if that's what they want, but it wasn't for me. My experience was that it was kind of just trading one master for another. I just want to spend $250 on lunch for my team for Bob's birthday and I don't think a union is going to help with that.
while llama.cpp is an meta creation, and meta as I loathe them with a passion, I do admit it's the easiest out of the others. Compile this, give it brain - run. And you get a webui and api.
The commenter was being sarcastic to highlight the current trend of dismissing Mythos, and LLM’s finding security vulnerabilities in general, as a non issue.
