Terminal emulators are a crutch you kids are spoiled by. In my day we had to create programs on punch cards. Copy a file from one directory to another? fifteen cards full of custom assembler code. Print out a file listing on the teletype? Ten cards... uphill... in the snow... both ways.
Or the more than 42K NGOs getting billions of dollars in Minnesota alone are not legitimate and this will just be the tip of the iceberg.
Ilhan Omar has a $174K salary, and she went from nearly broke to having a net worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million in the space of six years... and her only "work" is the Senate? This is an amazing rags-to-riches story! Journalists should be knocking down her door to discuss it. But it's "not news," right?
You miss my point. I have no idea whether or not something is there and can't be bothered to look into it as, to me, even if it's true, it's just a drop in a planetary ocean of incompetence, fraud, waste, and abuse.
The reality is that the perception of "truth" (whether this is something or there isn't) is going to highly dependent on which tribe you're in. That is, if you're republican, the fraud will be obvious and if you're democrat, it's obvious that even if there is some fraud, it is blown out of proportion.
As we have seen time and time again, whether there will be repercussions will be dependent in who is in power.
Which agent has not been launched by a human with a prompt generated by a human or at a human's behest?
We haven't suddenly created machine free will here. Nor has any of the software we've fielded done anything that didn't originally come from some instruction we've added.
Right, and casual speech is fine, but should not be load-bearing in discussions about policy, legality, or philosophy. A "who's responsible" discussion that's vectoring into all of these areas needs a tighter definition of "decides" which I'm sure you'll agree does not include anything your thermostat makes happen when it follows its program. There's no choice there (philosophy) so the device detecting the trigger conditions and carrying out the designated action isn't deciding, it is a process set in motion by whoever set the thermostat.
I think we're in agreement that someone setting the tool loose bears the responsibility. Until we have a serious way to attribute true agency to these systems, blaming the system is not reasonable.
"Oops, I put a list of email addresses and a random number generator together and it sent an unwanted email to someone who didn't welcome it." It didn't do that, you did.
> Oops, I put a list of email addresses and a random number generator together and it sent an unwanted email to someone who didn't welcome it.
Well no, that’s not what happened at all. It found these emails on its own by searching the internet and extracting them from github commits.
AI agents are not random number generators. They can behave in very open-ended ways and take complex actions to achieve goals. It is difficult to reasonably foresee what they might do in a given situation.
These are all bad-faith takes. What are you doing?
24 years ago, some people wrote on Wikipedia instead of elsewhere. So the wiki page itself became a primary source.
"The page shouldn't have been submitted..." This was a Wiki! If you're unfamiliar with the origin of the term, it was a site mechanism designed to lean in to quick capture and interweaving of documents. Volunteers wrote; the organization of the text arose through thousands of hands shaping it. Most of them were software developers at the time. At a minimum, the software-oriented pages should get special treatment for that alone.
You're acting as though this is producing the next edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, held to a pale imitation of its standards circa the 1980s. The thing is, Britannica employed people to go do research for its articles.
Wikipedia is not Britannica, and this retroactive "shame on them" is unbelievable nonsense.
Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia, and with time, citing your sources has become more and more important. Wikipedia isn't was it once was in 2001. Articles can't survive on being verified by their own primary sources, for the same reason we don't want Wikipedia to become a dumping ground for advertisers who then cite their own site in an attempt to gain legitimacy. Secondary sources provide a solid ground truth that the subject in question has gained recognition and thus notability. If those secondary sources don't exist, we can't assume notability based on nothing.
Wikipedia isn't Britannica, because by this point it's probably a lot better than Britannica. They were comparable already in 2005,[1] and I have little reason to believe that Wikipedia is doing much worse on that front nowadays, even though they have vastly more content than Britannica.
Some of the deleted pages never had the « sources missing » tag set for a significative time. It has been straight to deletion point.
Some pages that survived the deletion (e.g. TPRF) had the « missing sources » tag set since 15 years… What, I have to admit, can justify some action. But it was not the case for the PerlMonks and Perl Mongers pages: those just got deleted on an extremely short notice, making it impossible for the community to attempt any improvement.
7 days is policy for a deletion proposal,[1] which I can agree is not really enough time, although it's usually extended if talks are still ongoing.
There aren't really any rules about putting up notices and such before proposing deletion, and if you can't find anything other than primary sources, it doesn't seem unreasonable to propose deletion than propose a fix which can't be implemented. Thankfully, someone did find reliable sources for some of the articles.
Apple's consent requirement isn't good enough for legal consent so third-parties have to ask twice, which "harms advertisers" trying to get at that juicy personal data.
I hear this, and I want to sympathize, but I always have trouble reconciling it with the philosophy pointed to by the phrase "information wants to be free."
Should the people be compensated for their work? Yes. Is this piracy? Yes, we know that many of these big organizations just outright copied the work with out proper payment. (No, it isn't theft, theft deprives the owner of property, not just a portion of the revenue.)
But tokenization and vectorization of this data is fundamental transformation. Information wants to be free. Again, I don't know if I can reconcile this with fair use doctrine, but it smells like it, especially for books that would be in a library, or images of paintings.
If we embodied these learning systems in a robot, sent it to the library, and had it read every book, would it be piracy? That's how humans learn. They take away a fundamental summary of the thing. When I read a book I'm affected by it. My vocabulary, even my writing style sometimes. The fact that these are machine systems capable of doing this at scale... does that make a difference?
Fair use doctrine is explicitly for the humans. For the better overall state of humankind. It is not logically "fair" in the terms of some abstract logic, since we are giving preference to some part of the population and not everyone equally/fairly. So the fairness is not in the perfect mathematical equality of the application of fair use law, it is in the inequality of it and this is what makes it fair. In short - fair use is a hack, which we humans invented for ourselves, for our better living.
There is no some law of the universe that a hack we have invented for ourselves should be extended to literally everything everywhere, we don't "owe" this to anyone. So we don't "owe" it to our computers that fair use doctrine should be extended to the computer programs. The fairness word in the fair use doctrine doesn't mean that every entity should automatically benefit from such law. It's only for humans now.
My point of this long rant is that making fair use universally fair, automatically makes it unfair for the humans, for the original recipients of the benefits of this law. And there is no compromise here. We either ignore human rights, or computer program rights.
