This speaks to the low quality assurance bar that most of the software industry lives by.
If you're programming for a plane's avionics, as an example, the quality assurance bar is much, much higher. To the point where any time-saving benefits of using an LLM are most likely dwarfed by the time it takes to review and test the code.
It's easy to say LLM is a game-changer when there are no lives at stake, and therefore the cost of any errors is extremely low, and little to no QA occurs prior to being pushed to production.
Replace "Harvard" with "Trump University" in this conversation, and I believe many HN types would have a different opinion of the policies. The argument is, if educational institutions can't be ideologically neutral, why should they get the benefit from grants, tax free endowments, and a tax funded international customer acquisition pipeline? Especially as they become outrageously expensive debt traps, with worse ROIs.
I don't agree with this international student, and other policies, or implementations, and you can't run government like you run a "move fast and break things" startup, which seems to be how the administration is operating.
But, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, and try to separate Trump's execution from the underlying ideological sentiment.
Not to mention, short term cost cutting is what ever business tends to prioritize. Companies would prefer not to pay anyone for anything, including random "researchers".
> The Jones lawyers argued that the discovery requests were for documents that don't exist, and that's why they were not produced.
And then they accidentally sent all of the non-existent documents to the plaintiffs, showing Jones had committed perjury. And then they forgot to claim it as privileged in a timely fashion. And then Jones got confronted with the lie in court. And then they got sanctioned for the fuckup. Oops.
>And then they accidentally sent all of the non-existent documents to the plaintiffs
That's not what these two linked articles say. The AP articles about this state that the improper conduct was about disclosure of information the plaintiffs had sent the Jones legal team. Nothing to do with discovery that was requested from Jones.
> During parts of his testimony stretching over two days in a Texas courtroom, Jones repeatedly told jurors that he does not use email and that he had searched the contents of his phone for messages pertaining to Sandy Hook after he was sued by several family members of the victims for falsely saying the shooting was a hoax.
> Jones said that his phone search, done during the discovery phase of the trial, did not turn up any relevant messages. Texas Judge Maya Guerra Gamble has already ruled in favor of Sandy Hook parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis by default, saying that Jones did not comply with the rules of discovery in the case.
Nevertheless, this one liner about this topic does not specify what the discovery requests were. If the request was about finding text messages regarding a specific topic, as the term "relevant" implies, then just because text messages from Jones exist (and were improperly disclosed), doesn't speak to whether or not those text messages were relevant in this context or not.
