Nadya

Yeah, I have a never ending need of things I could easily make myself I I could set aside 7-10 hours to plan it out, develop and troubleshoot but are also low priority enough that they sit on the back burner perpetually.

Now these things are being made. I can justify spending 5-10 minutes on something without being upset if AI can't solve the problem yet.

And if not, I'll try again in 6 months. These aren't time sensitive problems to begin with or they wouldn't be rotting on the back burner in the first place.

> In the story the engineers weren't designing a tool well-suited for the customers, but for whatever abstract scenarios they had in their head.

A joke exists about how developers will never be displaced by AI because that would require clients and/or project managers to accurately describe what they want the AI to build. On one hand that is extremely egotistical of developers. On the other it is also factual.

To my understanding of the story the developers had designed what was being communicated to them by someone who described what customers asked for and not what the customers actually wanted or needed. Nothing to do with what the engineers thought customers wanted and everything to do with what project managers had expressed to the engineers about what customers wanted. Speaking with the customers directly gave them a better idea of what was actually being asked for. So they built that instead.

My takeaway from the story is to fire the project manager. Not to make devs call clients.

If a user holds an ice cream cone upside-down and their ice cream falls to the floor, do you blame the user for not holding their ice cream cone upright or the creator of the ice cream cone for a stupid design that allows the ice cream to so easily fall out of the ice cream holding device and onto the floor?

I find far more often that bad UX is the result of someone trying to use a tool for something it wasn't designed for. They might even clob several different tools together in an unholy abomination to get it to do what they actually want instead of having a tool built to do precisely what they want (and once that tool has been built - people will inevitably misuse it to do things other than what it was designed for and then complain about its poor UX for doing those things).

So essentially only the rich and famous have any meaningful protection under the law. Have to love the legal system sometimes.

Also sucks if you sound like Morgan Freeman. Put out of an entire line of work because someone was famous for sounding like you first.

Yes, but none of that is truly unique. The odds of a doppleganger sharing my name are astronomically slim but my looks, voice, interests, personality, etc. are not truly unique to me.

For an example, what of voice impersonators? Sounding like Morgan Freeman is not unique to Morgan Freeman. What if a soundalike legally changes their name to Morgan Freeman? What if a lookalike changes their name?

I'm familiar with the existence of such laws but less so with how they are enforced or how they can even be enforced at all. The laws have never made that much sense to me.

The argument of likeness seems odd to me because there are at least a dozen people who might look almost exactly like you who are alive somewhere in the world.

What if I give explicit permission to use my likeness but my lookalike demands it can't be used? We're both dead. Do my wishes not get respected because someone who looks like they could be my identical twin had other wishes? Whoever's estate has the deeper pockets?

See photography by François Brunelle. The similarities went past appearances too. Many of the stranger dopplegangers had similar hobbies and even similar personalities. So if an AI recreation looks like me, acts like me, and has the same hobbies as me that means nothing unless someone is trying to claim it is me (rather my likeness).

Very useful for flagging any O(n^2) that make assumptions about the size of N because N is not expected to exceed a certain size. Especially for when N inevitably exceeds that size.

Documenting it saves the poor dev doing profiling in the future a bit of effort so they can come up with the better solution that you failed to come up with when writing the code.

Often times code has to be written and committed and I don't have the time nor the brains to come up with a novel solution that solves a future performance issue that is not yet and is not expected to ever become a performance issue.

Rust is like walking across a mine field with all the mines flagged for you. You can dig up the mine and remove the flags over time. Or at least know to avoid stepping carelessly around them.

In C you only see the flags people know of or remembered to plant. There's an awful lot of mines left unflagged and sometimes you step on them.

It's very obvious to me which would be more safe and I find myself questioning why it is isn't so obvious to others.

I'm a Memrise beta member w/ lifetime premium access for my contributions to the site in its early days. I cannot recommend anyone use Memrise for anything nowadays it has been so heavily enshittified. In fact, I recommend against using it in favor of Anki (Memrise's biggest strength over Anki in the early days was the community mnemonics and courses (Anki equivalent "community decks") - none of which really exist in any way today).

I tried following the modern Japanese track on Memrise and was appalled at how bad it is nowadays.

There are at least two projects like this for watching anime. I won't name them in this forum but they do exist if you look for them.

"Kids having access to AI is too dangerous. Kids learning how to make explosives and LSD is perfectly safe."

Have a happy holidays.

I would greatly appreciate if you engaged with what I wrote and not what you think I wrote if you're going to make the bold claim that I'm not engaging in good faith.

Absolutely nowhere did I equate writing a book to grooming. I equated selling the book in the greater context that "providing children with potentially harmful/dangerous information should be illegal because it grooms them to commit harmful actions to themselves or others" and this context would carry the implications that by "selling" I am referring particularly to "selling it to children" since "providing children with potentially harmful/dangerous information should be illegal because it grooms them to commit harmful actions to themselves or others". With my argument being would it be criminal for an AI but not for a human?

So to clarify the argument: Writing the book is fine. Selling the book to adults is fine. Adults reading the book is fine. But if providing dangerous information to children should be made illegal - how would selling such a book to a child not be considered illegal? Because it was written by a human and not an AI?

So selling the Anarchists Cookbook is illegal? Being a YouTuber targeting teens for <extreme political positions> is illegal? This is honestly news to me given how many political YouTubers there are who are apparently criminals?

Given some of the examples I'm not so sure a human would be charged for saying the same exact things the AI has said. Without an actual push to suggest violence and even that's difficult to prove in cases where it does happen (eg. The cases where people pressured others into suicide or convinced them to murder)

People can give children terrible information too and steer/groom them in harmful directions. So why stop there at "AI" or poorly defined "algorithms"?

The only content children should see is state-approved content to ensure they are only ever steered in the correct, beneficial manner to society instead of a harmful one. Anyone found trying to show minors unapproved content should be imprisoned as they are harmful to a safe society.