handoflixue

As an analogy, consider doing this to a person and trying that same excuse.

I suppose if the robot literally cannot path around someone standing still, it might be a valid excuse? But as soon as you're actively moving to block it, it is obviously obstruction.

Judges get to run off common sense, not programmer logic - the point of the law is that public paths ought to be usable by anyone for lawful purposes, and currently "delivery robot" is a lawful purpose.

Should we also have a transportation worker's bill of rights, that sets the reasonable output that one can expect from a human? Would it be reasonable to set that rate based on what a human can deliver on foot, unassisted by any vehicle?

The whole point of a tool is that it increases the amount of output we can expect from workers. Otherwise we'd still all be doing agriculture, because the farmer's bill of rights sets the maximum output of a farm and there's not enough surplus for non-farmers.

It really depends on what the application does. It's only really a problem if it's internet-facing, and even then, the harm is limited to the application's own permission set. I don't really care if someone can chain together zero-day exploits to "pwn" my lightbulbs.

A lot of the recent major exploits like php2shell require a fair amount of effort to use, so unless you're a major public figure or holding on to something very valuable, there's not a lot of reason to be concerned.

Obviously, if you're writing a password manager, it's a very different story and I'd be horrified by such a policy there. But you've got to make an argument that this specific app is actually a target

It's not enforceable, because the people in charge don't have any knowledge of whether I consulted an LLM while writing this comment.

You said it yourself - the enforceable policy is a a different, and much more reasonable policy. If the rule is "ultimately" something else, you can in fact just make that the rule. Or include a parenthetical explanation.

Rules are the ideal place for being pedantic and detailed! That's the whole point of rules - ultimately, the rule is the rule that was actually written down. Not anything else.

I'm actually seeing a lot less annoyance at this policy -vs- others like it. I'd assume that's partly because the policy makes sense here, and partly because the policy was respectfully communicated instead of implying that AI-users are committing some sort of cardinal sin.

> We know that if something gained somewhere, something lost somewhere.

Yeah, but that doesn't imply equivalent exchange.

If you care about being the best sprinter in the world, yeah, put in the time and effort! But if you just want to get to work, there's no way you can beat the speed of a car.

If you're one of the better bug-hunters in the world, you probably lose something by using an LLM. For the rest of us, it's increasingly like trying to race a car.

We definitely need both types - it's important having the humans who do have that top 1% understanding. But increasingly, for everyone else, LLMs outperform doing it by hand.

I really appreciate the thoughtful message of "these two coding styles are simply incompatible, and as the lead maintainer I'm using the non-LLM style". No hate or hard feelings for those that prefer the alternative.

I really wish a lot more of this debate could show that level of respect for the other side.

I strongly suspect that if you fed this video through an LLM, it would spot all of the mistakes - the problem is that parsing and generating video is still pretty expensive, so that sort of automatic multi-pass process isn't showing up yet. Better to let the human decide whether they mind enough to pay for edits.

It matters whether humans can pass the test or not.

Humans also get details wrong when they do stuff like this. So right away, we learn this isn't a limitation of AI. If you want to say that getting that wrong is "proof they don't have a world model", that cuts both ways - it means humans do just fine despite not having one of those either.

But that also lends us insight into fixing the issue on merit! If humans also obviously lack a world model, how do we cope with this? Sometimes we use "live action" and reality forces consistency. Sometimes we use editors and QA. Sometimes it ends up on a website listing every little shot-to-shot inconsistency in every single TV show and movie ever made.

And now you have a few clear ideas on how to train the next generation of image models to do better! And you can probably dramatically improve your own prompting by providing reference images, using consistent descriptions, etc..

So, hardly irrelevant.

Ctrl+F for the heading "What if AI becomes capable of writing truly reliable Wikipedia articles?" in the article - it discusses that it was started because AI-written content is low-reliability, but that could change as AI improves.

It's a pretty short article compared to what usually gets posted here.

You are aware that, in the article, the Oregon Police are the ones charging a news outlet money, right?

Like, technically these requests cost nothing, because they pass the costs on - and because in this case, they've presented an absurd cost to avoid having to do anything at all

Are there any examples of that for physical goods? Software I've heard the legal justifications for, but never for something like a TV

"Rich enough"?

You can only make a FOIA request to the US government.

I should think it obvious that yes, every department should in fact be staffed to a level that allows them to comply with this (and all other) legal obligations. Doing otherwise is obviously malicious.

This law was passed last century, back in 1966. It's not like this is some surprising new obligation that they failed to staff against.