jasonlotito

Here's the problem I have. No doubt an LLM made it faster to write those docs, but did you fully spot check it for accuracy?

Hi. I write lots of documentation already. I enjoy the taste of clean, fresh, accurate documentation.

Spot-check it for accuracy? I review it. The same way I would review other documentation in the past. The difference? Fewer errors and issues, and when I do find them, it's far easier to get things sorted out.

A lot of people aren't

Correct. A lot of people aren't reviewing. Not even AI, just reviewing in general. And even when they review, they are only looking, not testing.

The difference is that before, it was a human mistake. Now it's an AI mistake, and people HATE AI mistakes. Even if the number of AI mistakes is fewer than the human mistakes.

I don't want to pretend that documentation is easy, and well-made human documentation is still far better than the best AI documentation for the most part. But... it depends on the audience and purpose. Most importantly, AI documentation is good enough for most cases, and well-made human documentation is far rarer.

I'm surprised people reach for plex

I have a lifetime subscription from 2016. All my friends have Plex, too. It works. We share. Ezpz.

As has been discussed elsewhere, this sounds more like you are flagged than SOP.

No. Russia invaded Ukraine. And while it wasn't a single whimsical choice, blaming NATA wrong. This was the mad dictator, and trying to cast blame on anyone else is the same as accepting the blame yourself.

Tim Cook is the current CEO. Tim Cook is doing this. Any assertion otherwise is 100% wrong.

John Ternus doesn't become CEO until September 1st. If you think that this is still John Ternus' play, Tim Cook is still the one in charge and signed off to start this, meaning "Tim Cook would never have started this" is still 100% wrong.

You are getting downvoted because, I guess, people didn't read who the defendents who are getting sued, and that it literally starts with sueing two employees:

CHANG LIU, TANG YEW TAN, OPENAI FOUNDATION f/k/a OPENAI, INC., OPENAI GROUP PBC, and IO PRODUCTS, LLC f/k/a IO PRODUCTS, INC.,

https://www.rpguni.com

A free, local-first desktop app for worldbuilding and running tabletop RPGs like D&D.

I've spent more than a year on this, first a website, and then migrating it to a desktop app.

DOGE's record.

but I don't know a single person who engages with them in that solitary way,

We exist. You won't know because it's solitary. You have to ask, and I doubt you've asked people specifically if they "engage with them" in that way.

I also think it depends on what you are reading. I read for enjoyment using audio books. I read to learn using real books. If you equate the two and assume someone using audio books is using them for non-fiction to learn something, I really think you are out of touch.

Again, the article says otherwise. So do the police.

To answer your question succinctly: The government is doing them, and that could be breaking the law.

If you are still unconvinced, ask yourself why you think the government breaking the law is not an issue?

FTA: They are not used to chase active criminals.

This is just an AI comment masquerading as not trying to prove a point.

linting tools, static analysis, CPD, etc. These are all old things you can continue to use and are much more robust than anything you can prompt. These should be standard when using LLMs. In fact, you can tighten the rules even more enforcing more restrictions so you ONLY get the output you want. put this behind a pre-commit hook and a CI job that runs on a PR, and it will work wonders.

You can have all the prompts you want on top of this, but if you don't have this automated stuff running behind the scenes, you aren't serious about these issues.

Looking through some of these comments here, I see lots of people rewriting concrete rules in markdown willing to spend tokens on the hope AI won't miss it where an actual program won't.

There is nothing subtle about them being okay with producing child porn. That's a hard no from me. You can't argue your way around that.

2009 is a generation ago. Asking why a new generation why they might not have petitioned 17 years ago seems like asking where a 21 year old was on 9/11.

As for a better reception, the assumption was RFK Jr. would take it more seriously.

If you've believed all the government data for the last 10 or 15 years I got a bridge for sale.

It's not about belief. It's about trust. And as they say: trust, but verify.

We could trust the data, but we should, of course, verify it. And that's generally how it worked. And both sides of the aisle happily trusted this data and verified it. It wasn't always correct, but not so much that you should start by not trusting it at all.

But now we are at that point. I've taken the attitude of simply assuming the opposite and starting from that position, and it has served me well most of the time. I take what the current administration is claiming, assume the opposite and start from there.

To be fair, I agree with your sentiment, don't just believe what the government is saying. But there has been a dramatic shift since January 2024.

Yesterday.

"In France, Arkane's management is beginning required consultation with its Works Council to review potential strategic options."

Not in a serious way, no (hence my 'mocking' commentary). It's always playing off the joke or idea of "bribe". But if someone said "I bribed a police officer" wouldn't take it as a joke.

Edit: And to be clear, I wouldn't describe either of those are "morally neutral or even positive situations."

But please, by all means tell me how "Foo Company bribed professional Bar" is used positively and frequently enough that the gp makes sense.

In the US we sometimes use the term “bribe” in morally neutral or even positive situations.

I live here in the US. I've NEVER heard the term bribe in a neutral or even positive way. It might be used in a mocking way, as if to mock the idea of bribes, but never seriously.

So, unless you are confusing that mocking nature as morally neutral or even positive, this is incorrect.

It's not that it's bad writing. It's that people are used to bad writing. People are used to garbage. For example, your comment is awful from a literature or writing perspective. It needs to be edited. This comment that I'm writing right now is awful. We're used to crap writing and people who don't care about editing and putting out good, thoughtful words. When all you're used to is garbage, things that actually are better are generally going to seem odd and out of place. However, for those people that are used to better, more elegant writing, it's going to seem fine.

Of course, the difference here is context. In a comment, you're not expecting well-written sentences, structure, and editing. So we jump at these things that seem out of place because of the context.

sometimes that writing makes me really upset.

You know what makes me upset?

- No writing

- Or bad documentation

- Or just no documentation

- Or just nothing being written down about something

For me, at its core, the most important thing is accuracy. Is it accurate? If so, good. We can start from there. If your issue is style, fine, but that's a personal judgment. As long as it's accurate, I'm fine.

Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading?

More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards.

Maybe i am missing something

You are.

idk

That says it all.

Huh? As a parent with kids who take the bus, people ignoring the flashing lights on buses absolutely does matter.

This doesn't stop that. And the penalty is too low to stop this. Nor does this target the people running these lights.

I'd prefer to stop it from happening rather than merely fining people.

Further, to my direct point: you can literally respect the flashing lights and stop at buses and still get penalized for this.

So why do you want to punish people for obeying the law?

Bus drivers call the cops on the cars who do this already. What evidence do they have, other than the license plate?

If they can get the license plate sure. But they rarely can. And they don't, which is why it rarely goes to trial.

I'm curious, do you want to stop this or just let people make money off this scheme? As a parent with kids, I'd think it would be the former, but you are arguing for the latter.

This was a post shared with colleagues. Apparently, reaching out to colleagues and friends is verboten now?

You are getting emotional. Maybe try calming down?

This was a post to colleagues.

Someone else shared it out. Now, calm down. Your acting emotional. Maybe try smiling.

Because it was intended for colleagues and not the wider public.

https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/

He has not been responsible for Android Security since 2019.

https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/

how hard is it to simply not be an asshole and not pass school buses when they have their flashing lights out?

As a parent with children who take the bus... this actually doesn't matter. You can't assume that the car's owner is passing the school bus. So, this is a case of finding someone guilty with no physical evidence. And the real fear there is that suddenly you are guilty because someone else was using your Wi-Fi, and you suddenly have the burden of proof to prove your innocence.

Where I live every intersection has cameras.

And now you are guilty of crimes. Prove you didn't do them.

You aren't answering the question. You are reframing the question so you can give the answer you want, thereby avoiding giving the real answer to the question presented.

It is exactly that. You aren't crazy to question this.