Wouldn't that be censorship, too?

Strawberries are a well known weakness of LLMs, as they have a hard time to count the numbers of "r"s in them. Maybe that's why, because they fear that weakness could be exploited somehow.

I always thought this should be easier by telling it to write each letter one a new line, then count, any token separator ought to suffice, so much so you'd think they'd have trained in this strategy given tokens make individual letters opaque

Strawberries aren't the weakness, the weakness is the tokenization of a prompt. Any word with multiple duplicate characters is going to be troublesome for LLMs.

I think the parent is aware and was joking.

Probably need to be taught by someone of Latino origin. Learning to roll them "r"s could help.

2/3rds of all languages use rolled r's

2/3rrrrds of all languages use rolled r's

Really? I find that hard to believe and can't find a reference for it.

It likely is, but it is still uncanny to think about how much of it is actually true.

Is it making fun of people relying on ChatGPT, or is it just an exaggerated description of how she actually does research, honestly I don't know.

That's what makes it good satire.

But if you honestly think that someone applying for a postdoc can't explain what their research is about, it's on you.

Applying for a position is a much lower bar than having any chance of landing the position.

I’ve interviewed someone for a programming position. The guy practically nailed the standard quiz (done at leisure before the interview), but was unable to explain why he answered what he answered. When we got to reviewing a little program (compare two strings, see if the distribution of letters is the same), he could not walk me through it. He was applying for a programming position, and could not explain his "own" impressively correct programming answers.

Well at least postdocs have a PhD, that they had to defend in front of a chalk board I presume. Still, sometimes, frauds do slip through.

>Well at least postdocs have a PhD

That's the point. This is the bar.

>Still, sometimes, frauds do slip through.

You're projecting your experience in IT on academia, and I can't emphasize strongly enough how far off you are. Which was why this piece was written: that reality is already here in software engineering. The entire point is: if this seems absurd in the context of the piece, why would you accept this anywhere else?

In any case, this satire wasn't written from the point of view of a fraud. And if it doesn't seem outright absurd to you, you need to get a reality check.

Because you can wrap Go binaries in Python wheels, but not yet Python wheels in Go binaries

You can embed a whole dir using //go:embed, also python exe for all architectures, then extract & run it at runtime. Python via WASI is also possible.

Also, in that case, they know where all the men currently are, which is probably the main reason to implement it now. m

Well that’s the thing, they won’t know because nobody will do the registration until it’s actually enforced.

Maybe you could use different timetables in summer and winter, so that only the relevant part of activities is affected, not everything indiscriminately. This would also make it possible to cater to local needs much better instead of simply fixing school hours from 9 to 15 and adjusting the clock that it falls into daylight.

Then local businesses would have to shift their hours to support parents with kids. And before you know it, you’ve effectively shifted everyone’s clock anyway.

Schedule. Not clock.

My point is in this context they’re ostensibly the same thing.

No, executive orders can't change law and international law, unless ratified by congress, is not democratically legitimized and applicable law in the US to begin with

You mean like the tariffs congress didn't approve?

Dictators rarely gain power legitimately, and always keep it with violence.

There's a stark difference between de jure and de facto here. Executive orders will brazen, tyrannical effects and are often reined in late or never.

We just started a war with Iran without congressional approval or briefing, so I'm not sure if law has meaning anymore.

War Powers Resolution. Obviously, there’s a law of which multiple presidents have used. Congress can change this law but there is a law that does give the POTUS this authority.

Nope, the War Powers Resolution gives the president broad authority to respond to an active attack on the United States (which makes sense). But it does not allow the President to unilaterally start an aggressive war against some random country without Congressional approval.

Not that we live in country where laws or the Constitution matter much right now. It's theoretically possible that some people might someday be prosecuted for breaking laws or violating people's Constitutional rights. But even there, I world expect that many of the law breakers will simply be pardoned.

What about the argument that Congress has always gone along with this in the past?

I mean it isn't quite that stark, but the last president that actually asked congress for and got a declaration of war was Roosevelt. The last president that asked for and got permission for the use of military force was George Bush (junior) after 9/11 (obv. he meant against the Taliban).

Which means all US conflicts are "based on" George Bush's approval for use of military force, about 1 per presidential term: military intervention in Lybia, the campaign against ISIS, campaign against Syria and Iraq militias/continuation against ISIS, and now Iran. Iran is a different scale I guess, but ...

LOL. you really believe that?

It's not new in the sense that any of its components are new, and it's not new in the sense that similar things had not been done before, it's new in the sense that putting the right components together in the right way suddenly created something capable of starting a viral hype.

Essentially, as I understand it, it is a personal AI assistant running on your computer, integrated with different systems (like email, chat).

What would be a reasonable amount of time to audit the dependencies?

I would let them decide based on their security policy.

If Microsoft states that they don't have any for a project like this, I would be wary of taking it too seriously.

It's not that life wants to continue existing, it's that life is what continues existing. That's not a moral standard, but a matter of causality, that life that lacks in "want" to continue existing mostly stops existing.

I disagree, this we don't know. You treat life as if persistence is it's overarching quality, but rocks also persist and a rock that keeps persisting through time has nothing that resembles wanting. I could be a bit pedantic and say that life doesnt want to keep existing but genes do.

But what I really want to say is that wanting to live is a prerequisite to the evolutionary proces where not wanting to live is a self filtering causality. When we have this discussion the word wanting should be correctly defined or else we risk sitting on our own islands.

The moral standard isn't trying to explain why life wants to exist. That's what evolution explains. Rather, the moral standard is making a judgement about how we should respond to life's already evolved desire to exist.

Do you think conscious beings actually experience wanting to continue existing, or is even that subjective feeling just a story we tell about mechanical processes?