Only like 3% of readers poast. That's why there's a concentration on the web of the extremely knowledgeable, extremely witty, extremely belligerent, and the extremely mentally ill.
> may well catch the eyes and minds of individuals in a position to look more deeply and act.
Of course sometimes that act is "post as many comments as you can to this thread without upvoting it," or "grab about 20 dormant accounts to upvote it, post top-level positive, but dumb, comments, have those same accounts upvote those, and get detected as a voting ring."
Cool: an individual, or an organization, not believing in IP, reading what they want, and sharing what they want.
Cringe: an individual, or an organization, fierce defenders of their own IP and regular DMCA abusers, stealing the IP of others in order to sell it themselves.
There's a lot of twisting you have to do to make these two things the same. These people would happily deliver takedown requests to the original producers of IP if they knew they could get away with it. In fact, they long to.
The problem here is that search engines are trash now. The AI companies are going to have to start running their own (if they haven't already) for their models to use that haven't been nerfed. That might be the next moat against open/local LLMs by cloud LLMs, so the search engines are probably going to get even worse.
It seems that by that definition the BIOS would be the only thing that could be called an operating system, the bootloader is just a piece of software akin to a calculator or word processing app, and Linux, Windows, and MacOS some data file that you're loading, like an mp3.
If you don't think that what happened and is happening to black people affects our average performance on tests, you haven't eliminated racist assumptions, you've eliminated the entire black experience in America and any reason for a grudge or complaint.
Grouping a list of test performances by race shouldn't lead to an assumption of natural stupidity any more than grouping a list of incomes or wealth by race should lead to an assumption of natural laziness.
And the fact that you jump to that conclusion, and it makes you nervous, so you think it's bad to talk about the facts that remind you of that conclusion, does not help black people.
You could say the same thing about Hispanic economic migrants. You don't think that economic migrants from countries with good universities and healthy middle classes are going to score lower on tests? The ones that fly in are a different story, they're often elites, but the ones that walk in? They're bottom caste where they come from, and looking for a chance to change things.
I don't think so. I think what was meant was what was literally said: that 88% of youth qualified for the military are in college.
66% of youth are not qualified for the military or college, leaving a remainder of 34% that are qualified for the military, college, or both.
X% of youth qualified for college but not the military (qualified for college here meaning attending college, I think.), leaving (34-X)%.
Of those, 88% attend college .88(34-X)%,
leaving .12(34-X)% eligible for recruitment. Which ends up a successful recruiting number like 63.5K, which is from one of the references.
I could be wrong, but it could make sense.
But also, 2/3rds of 34% also leaves a remainder of about 12% (which is a bit coincidental), so maybe what was meant to be said was that only 12% of (all American youth) are (qualified) and not (in college), rather than only 12% of (the qualified) are not (in college.)
> It usually takes me two or three iterations to get there though. Discussing design and principles before writing the bulk of the code is a must. And then a pass or two of review to weed out ugliness.
Am I crazy, or hasn't it been this good for a very long time? The ability to get code out of it after correcting it, correcting it, specifying and respecifying, instrumenting and reinstrumenting, reviewing and demanding refactoring, "no not like that", etc. has been there (for me) nearly from the start. They're great when you're working on something you're not an expert at, and fine if you're working on something that you are pretty good at (if you like to have a cheerleader that sometimes trips and falls on her face.)
My problem is that they don't understand some things that are very clear, and after you've corrected them to get them on track, you're exhausted. You put all of those corrections into a file for them so that when they make the same mistake in the next session you won't have to wrack your brain correcting them, then they a) ignore the file, or b) make a bunch of spurious objections because they were all ready to object and the saved response killed all of the content of those objections. They still seem remarkably dumb.
>>after you've corrected them to get them on track
They all still insist on serving bash code for FreeBSD where bash is not native. I've had to correct them all this whole year and they apologize profusely but, the next time, still use bash.
Note: you can install and run bash on FreeBSD. It's just not in the base installation or usage and I do not use it there.
I've explained to Claude Opus and Fable how rg is recursive by default so they shouldn't run it with -r. It's in my CLAUDE.md file. It's in a memory too. And still the newest versions of those models make the mistake several times per week.
> It is nothing more than an effort, sometimes overdone and misguided, to not say things that make minorities feel bad.
Unless it enforced by governments or other monopolies. Then it inevitably leads to lèse majesté, because 1) powerless minorities are powerless, and 2) the controllers of governments and monopolies (the powerful themselves) are a minority group.
The protection of the feelings of powerless minorities is a Trojan Horse; the grievances of powerless minorities are usually far more serious than hurt feelings, not saying magic words involves far less effort than actually addressing those grievances, and demanding that the public changes the way they speak costs governments and monopolies nothing. It in fact allows them to build the technical and legal structures to enforce lèse majesté.
> If anyone serious thinks political correctness is going to end racism, I certainly haven’t seen it.
Not if you say it like that, because it's so obviously stupid. But if you really investigate with people why they want people to stop saying "the n-word," they'll admit they have a fantasy that the sentiment will disappear with the word: it's why they also want black people themselves to stop saying it. The possibility that the sentiment will stay but that black people will lose the language to refer to it doesn't occur to them.
Just like color-blind casting of historical theatrical works isn't seen as a whitewashing of the racism of the past; there's a fantasy that if you wipe the memory of racism from the media, then it will somehow wipe it from the world rather than just gaslight minorities about their own pasts (and thereby their present condition.) At least that's just in the media, and breaking up monopolies can just make it a form of individual artistic expression rather than a diktat.
The censorship of speech itself, however, is a totalitarian version of this. It can only be done by monopolies. To make sure that people can't eat if they express themselves in a particular way is as compelling as you can get.
None of this has anything to do with AI watermarking, though, which is good. Somebody made a good point above that watermarking would allow a cartel of AI providers to make sure that their models were trained with uncontaminated data, while everybody else would have to train with the stepped-on garbage they were spitting out. But that's a job for antitrust. If you don't have antitrust, you don't have markets and you don't have freedom. Little technical touches around the edges are worthless. If they share, make them share with the entire class.
I think it is related to AI watermarking, though, in that all forms of trying to channel words in certain directions, or to add a meta-layer to language, share a family resemblance.
There might be an inevitability to this - there is always a form PC policing, or euphemism, or re-brands, or rhetoric. But there is always the danger that what is considered a well-meaning tweak to language masks or evolves into repression.
From TFA "Text watermarking is meant to help identify whether content was generated by AI, but inside an agent it also becomes part of the generation process that produces decisions."
> may well catch the eyes and minds of individuals in a position to look more deeply and act.
Of course sometimes that act is "post as many comments as you can to this thread without upvoting it," or "grab about 20 dormant accounts to upvote it, post top-level positive, but dumb, comments, have those same accounts upvote those, and get detected as a voting ring."
reply