ulrashida

Would you agree that public/consumer sentiment towards corporate behavior can change that behavior?

So bizarre to see the article refer to outputs as the models referencing "themselves". Computers are not a "them".

How dare you malign Jensen's jacket so.

Do your students know their feedback is AI generated?

A pre-AI example from the military : course reviews and performance assessments were changes to be from a set of about 70 descriptors instead of written custom. Instructors could modify them, but many didn't or did so only trivially. The system was junked in within three years because of the obvious: those giving feedback didn't own it, and those receiving feedback didn't value it.

I wonder if this will mean a resurgence of encyclopedias or other authoritative digital records that are known to be verified.

Cool. I hope this blows up in their face and is reverted in a few months. I don't need my phone book index to suddenly not be an index and force me to use a call center instead.

I wonder how visible it will be when showing final charges for an order.

I'd definitely be more likely to "wait it out" when considering purchases in my cart if I can see what I expect will be a temporary levy.

So, given that Phoenix, Denver, and Vegas already have spacing similar to European nations do they see the benefits that the author is suggesting?

Amusing that the author can't stomach referring to themselves as an agent manager so they retreat back to the term "agent engineering". Please.

That was the joke: it's not easy to quit smoking.

And yet somewhere around that 6th donut it will hit and you will stop.

Professional engineers are required to consider the interests of the public in their work, have an obligation to reject unethical or harmful instructions and are regulated by their professional organization to support competency and address malpractice. Much of this was driven over the past 50-100 years as society determined that they wanted things built by engineers to not kill people or have material deficiencies following construction.

From my understanding, software engineers are a long away out from this still but perhaps we'll get there once the dust settles on more of these sorts of lawsuits.

Not the kindest take (and unlikely true).

Students tend to be fairly lazy, so this may simply mean another x% of the class reads the material rather than scanning in the 60 pages of reading for the assignment.

Which module introduces students to some of the ethical and environmental aspects of using GenAI?

Exactly this. Increasing prices with worsening service and feature bloat combined with questionable ethics made it an easy decision to cancel.

Australia has 6 weeks of leave at similar service levels, plus 11 public holidays. Turns out many countries have figured out how to not work themselves to death.

None of this is necessary.

It's a bit telling of your own biases that government/public housing seems to have escaped mention as "having a place" in this scenario.

Feels like people on their deathbed are allowed to express their thoughts, trite/trivial or not. When you are literally dying the last thing on your mind should be whether some blogger deems your thoughts valuable or cheap.

May we all get to enjoy those final moments free of the need to perform on stage and express those things we truly wish to pass on to those will hear them.

That's a worthwhile view, but unlikely to occur. You may as well wish away casinos and alcohol while you're at it.

I was tempted to respond with an offhand comment about the size of the industry or similar, but what axe do you have to grind about PC gaming? You'd prefer folks go to the far more injurious mobile gaming space?

"We have not yet begun to truly suck."

Figures this comes from the National Design Studio (https://ndstudio.gov/) which ironically also ignores the government's own advice on web standards and correct use of identifying headers.

One can assume the US Tech Force will perceive itself as also unfettered by those silly rules and good practices.

It's a very good system. $20 is the right number to get you off the couch, but not so much as to cripple you. There are exceptions if you have a valid reason for not voting. The maximum fine is ~$180 so you can't simply ignore the Elections Commission and hope it goes away.

I'm not sure if you've been following, but the current SCOTUS hasn't seemed to as concerned about upholding precedents as previous courts have.

Thanks for clarifying, I fully agree with your take. Peer review helps, particularly where reviewers are equipped and provided the time to do the role correctly.

However, it is not alone a guarantor of quality. As someone proximate to academia its becoming obvious that many professors are beginning to throw in the towel or are sharply reducing their time verifying quality when faced with the rising tide of slop.

The window for avoiding the natural consequences of these trends feels like it is getting scarily small.

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

Unfortunately while catching false citations is useful, in my experience that's not usually the problem affecting paper quality. Far more prevalent are authors who mis-cite materials, either drawing support from citations that don't actually say those things or strip the nuance away by using cherry picked quotes simply because that is what Google Scholar suggested as a top result.

The time it takes to find these errors is orders of magnitude higher than checking if a citation exists as you need to both read and understand the source material.

These bad actors should be subject to a three strikes rule: the steady corrosion of knowledge is not an accident by these individuals.

Peer review definitely does catch errors when performed by qualified individuals. I've personally flagged papers for major revisions or rejection as a result of errors in approach or misrepresentation of source material. I have peers who say they have done similar.

I'm not sure why you think this isn't the case?

Effectively the nth iteration of "those crazy kids"