aakresearch

Only ever heard of matronym use as a joke or very archaic.

Referring with surname only is a hierarchy assertion thing, and somewhat rude - boss would talk down to subordinate like that, or teacher to student. When talking "up" or "sideways", or "down" but without a desire to assert superiority a name+patronymic is usually used, which reflects a respectful distance while not slipping into rudeness or overt familiarity. Sadly, it is mostly disappearing and giving way to Western "name-only".

And then, to emphasize familiarity, some groups adopt way of referring to each other by patronymic only :)

I've had Gemini CLI (the coding agent!) smuggling in Chinese words in the output - completely unexpectedly, I do not speak and never discussed anything Chinese with it. Copilot was mixing in Cyrillic character, unprovoked - take "обligation", for example. And so did Grok, when discussing Russian anecdotes - "KRЯК". Very helpful reminder to not anthropomorphise them machines.

I find this argument for-RTO/against-WFH emitting exactly the same vibes as argument against women suffrage and workforce participation. Yes, if we forget that we are talking about real people, and only consider a benefit of abstract entities that companies (or society) are, there may be some conjectures, or - dare I say - please bear with me - even limited "evidence" of it. After all, the status quo has supported both arguments for very long time (millennia for society and centuries of industrialization era for companies) and opposition was non-existent for most of that time. Unthinkable even, so embedded was the status quo. But this horse has bolted, because benefits for the freedom and wellbeing of individual - woman or WFH worker - are so enormous, that I do not understand how this handwavy anti-Remote argument is more defensible than anti-suffrage.

Last time I checked, their landing page looked like, I imagine, an escort agency catalog would. And why would I go to a cesspit if I already disturbed enough by that "art" screaming at me from every corner of Internet?

Today there is no guarantee that that sequence of characters, or the one it was produced in reply to, or, indeed, this very one you are reading right now did not come from a bot. There is a lot of "care" being performed and not much left to just exist.

Who's "we"?

0.5% you mean? France population is over 60 million people.

If decision-makers put up a front of recruiters and talent acquisition "specialists", don't they send a very explicit message that going past those is unwelcome and won't be considered?

I, personally, think it does not. For the absurd task which has no testable solution, there is no grounded basis to judge creativity or critical thinking behind an answer. The only things that remain are "vibes" or "hilarity". Well, if these are what you want to test for, I do not disagree. But it isn't something I'd be interested in.

What gives you basis to believe and accept that all of the above is exhaustive, complete and devoid of fakes? That "finding" finds ALL what exists and NONE of what does not exist? Ditto for categorising, summarising and labeling?

There is no fundamental guarantees provided by LLM architecture, so to assert anything of sorts would require manually executing the operation and comparing the results. And why not asserting the correctness is not negligence or fraud?

I am not saying it is impossible, but so far I have not found any explanations that would close this huge gap in logic for me. LLMs themselves "admit" the gap cannot be explained rationaly.

Beautifully put. Agree to the last letter.

"X in a trench-coat" started popping up recently

Does it obey?

Ooooh, don't get me started how mad it makes me! I am paranoid (or just lucky) enough that I didn't yet had it happen to me, but my wife's phone had done it four times in the last year. Each time I check and double check that all "backups" are turned off, and each time it somehow pops back.

So, Google "backs up" a 128Gb worth of photos on the phone onto 15Gb free storage combined with Gmail and who knows what, completely clogs it (as if it couldn't be predicted) and then has audacity to suggest paying for "extra storage". There is no way in online UI to just delete the whole "backup". And the cherry on top: when you finally get to delete some there is a fine-print - "the selected photos will be deleted from all synced devices". Well, I guess I must be thankful that they at least show this warning. This is what passes as "backup" in Google's parlance these days.

I think we are in full agreement. Likewise, I am not in charge of any practical matter, and glad I don't have to answer to any moral or physical dilemma.

The link is fun :). My kill count was 75.

I was hinting at full impossibility to quantify those problems. Starting with un-define-ability (sorry, English is not my native tongue) of the very term "need" upon which the predicate "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Maybe that is why I am leaning towards "deontological" resolution of trolley problems, rather than "utilitarian".

As for LLMs, I use them and benefit from them. For fun, and hopefully for profit too. But if I had a lever I could pull to make this tech disappear - I would not hesitate one second, deontology be damned. Even better if smartphones suddenly follow too.