Eextra953

It is happening, unfortunately. I work in HW design and it's coming from the top down. We were asked to implement llm based AI for HW design purposes. We presented what we came up with, which was a design helper system which could help validate and improve designs. Though they didn't say it explicitly, management made it clear that they wanted a system that could replace a designer not merely aid HW designers.

Why are we doing this again? The current administration established the existing trade deal back during the first term and now they are unhappy with it?

I've looked at this same problem in an academic environment and have come to conclude that there is no way to reliably detect AI writing using only text. The reason for this is that no detector can take two identical inputs and classify one as synthetic (LLM) and one as organic (Human) and this situation can easily happen at the sentence or even paragraph level. Posed as a question, if a human writes a paragraph that happens to be exactly the same as a paragraph written by an LLM how do you classify that paragraph? There are a finite number of words and a finite way of combining them within an academic setting/field which means that we can't build a perfect classifier with just text. In practice, there are obvious tells and LLM-isms but these also change with time and each model has different tells so that even if a paper is full of LLM like writing we have no way to disambiguate between organic text that appears synthetic or synthetic text that appears organic.

A more interesting question, to me, is looking at a corpus of essays and analyzing how writing has changed with the introduction of LLMs. We can look at changes in vocabulary, linguistic features, style embeddings, regular embeddings, typos, errors, and references over time. When looked at in this way it is clear that academic writing has changed at the population level but what has led the change is harder to track down.

If this is the case then people can pressure their representatives to make this against the law. The people have agency here.

Lawyers will be fine they will work with legislators to make it illegal for AI to practice law. Then, even if the lawyers job is mostly presenting the work of a legal AI, they will still be employed. Other knowledge workers will need to wisen up and do the same.

Edit: same for any profession that requires professional accreditation: lawyers, doctors, cpas, professional engineers, etc.

Am I understanding correctly that an implication of this is reduced context? since they are streaming by splitting the input into streams the total context is now split amongst those streams and a particular streams context will be shorted to to context/ streams?

This language is so lame 'forward-deployed engineer' oh you mean a software consultant/application engineer? This entire article is a joke, look at the FDE SaS flywheel diagram: 'The FDE activates the SaS flywheel and then your stock price will 10x!'

Does anyone know of any groups that are organizing and lobbying to get things like this into law? I know about the EFF but they seem to be more focused on documenting and reporting instead of lobbying and getting things passed.

Nice scope! I had a similar experience with using Claude to automate circuit design/simulation/optimization and found that they are not good at it. They are surprisingly good at taking raw files and describing what is in them, but they fall apart when trying to do anything other than design the simplest circuit. I think it is because they have no concept of the physics behind a circuit, so they cannot make changes that a designer would make. For optimizing a circuit using, say, an EM simulator, they don't know what to tweak and how to tweak it. In the end, I had to write a script to talk to the simulator and create a config file that specified the bounds of the simulation: step size, optimization algorithm, min, max, etc. Only then could I use an agent to call the script to optimize the circuit.

Propaganda works on people with all levels of 'capacity for reasoning'. No one is immune to it. Also, a feature of good propaganda is that it gets through a persons bullshit filter so that they are not even aware that they are being manipulated. The article points out the current use of Lego propaganda as examples of governments updating their tools so that they get their message across to more people.

This is important because it lets pluralities build from people who are not aware they are being manipulated. Pluralities can lead to majorities and majorities, in a democratic system, create power. All this to say: I don't think those who have fallen for propaganda are living in a world they are satisfied with but instead that they are living in a world they've been told they are satisfied with and a lack of counter narratives have not shown them a better way. Consider that propaganda gets busted out whenever something isn't naturally popular or beneficial to most people, that is why we see propaganda most used around military efforts.

I have a buddy who is a cop and he tells me that they use AI to write reports and even to check if their reason for pulling someone over will hold up later. As annoying as it is in SW, people using AI outside of SW is much more alarming.

I think going low-tech and deploy netting around critical things would be the most effective. Sure they are a pain but they'll catch drones before they reach any targets.

I think you are correct about the political violence being higher in 20th century USA. For anyone doubting it, just look at the black experience in the south during the civil rights movements. Where I am concerned is that the violence we are seeing today from the federal authorities is being endorsed by the federal government. In fact all leadership is doubling down and turning up the rhetoric whereas during the 50's and 60's it was the federal government stepping in if things got out of hand. With what is happening today, who will step in to cool things down?

Yes, in the case of a business giving out free services or things. But, government is not and has never been a business so this doesn't apply in this case.

Across the US, the majority (2/3-ish) of children already live in families where both parents are employed. I don't see free childcare moving that statistic more than a few percentage points at best. I'm skeptical that this policy would encourage more parents to work and further raise housing costs, especially since this would mostly affect families with children who are pre-K. It is a big policy change but the number of families it will affect is quite small I think. If it does have any effect on housing cost I would expect to see it at the very low-end since it would help low-earners the most.