mmcdermott

This is also why legal action must be taken against OpenAI for the Hugging Face incident, as well as any similar incidents. Their computer, their programs, their responsibility.

I've never gotten a lot of mileage out of treating tests as documentation. It is getting worse with how many people just tell the LLM to produce tests matching the code.

> Technical debt is nearly a nothingburger now. If you went in the wrong direction, just... change the code to go in the right direction.

Uncharitable though it may sound, what I hear reading this is "Tell me you've never worked on a large system without telling me you've never worked on a large system."

The deeper the concentration, the fewer words I want - or at least words I understand. Classical music with words I don't understand can also work quite well. There also seems to be a vague point where I have heard the lyrics so many times they stop being distracting.

I prefer silence but generally use music to focus. My choices aren't usually music or silence in practice, but music or office background noise.

Since my ordered ranking is Silence, then Music, with Office Noise last, music it is.

Perhaps, but it is also the way in which LLM providers eat their seed corn. If everyone publishes less because the only one to consume it will be an LLM gives no credit, then LLMs will lose training material over time.

Slavery was a controversy from the beginning that finally bubbled over into the Civil War. It was not, as this question seems to imply, a near universally approved of practice where a few just didn't happen to need slaves.

That doesn't justify allowing it for almost a century. The US was comparable to the rest of the West, in this regard. The final abolition of slavery in Britain wasn't until 1833.

Spite & Malice was always one of my favorites.

I think what gets most people is the double standard.

IP should either exist for everyone (which would cripple LLM providers) or no one, in which case the Pirate Bay and shadow libraries should be fully open.

Even if we accept that, the millions dead and incalculable human suffering incurred by the attempts is more than reason enough to stop trying.

There was no greater cause of human suffering in the 20th century than the worldwide attempts to build communist governments.

> Oh, they love to do precisely that.

I think it's been pretty well established that most legislators do not take the time to understand the details of bills prior to voting.

Moreover, these articles refer to an attempt to question how grant money already given (and presumably spent) was used.

Scrutiny is an inherent part of the powers of the purse. I.e. "we gave you $100 million to provide disaster relief, economic development in our sphere of influence, etc - what did you do with it?"

It's fair to want to retain the spending being questioned, but Congress is explicitly responsible for this function.

Deep expertise is not a blank check for funding. There is only so much money to go around and at some point you have to articulate your value to those paying for it (in this case, the tax payers and their representatives).

Yes, this means a high level summary generally focused on ends rather than the gory details of the means.

An expert acting in good faith should be able to provide this or, in the spirit of the Feynman technique, I would argue they aren't much of an expert at all.

This is the big one for me. I have no inherent problem with bigger budget stuff, but it is seldom about the things that interest me.

If it was a digital transcript service alone, yes, it is a success.

Claiming that the transcripts were generated by a nonexistant AI is fraud and should be treated as such.