It literally wrote a blog post [supposedly on its own initiative] trying to gin up outrage at open source maintainer after he denied the LLM's pull request.
He was only slandered once, by the LLM Agent. The Ars Technica article had presented paraphrases that it falsely attributed as direct quotes, and was therefore factually incorrect reporting. But it was not defamatory by any reasonable standard. Slander isn't just a synonym of "lie".
By the same reasoning, why on earth would a person sincerely ask you that question unless the car that they want to wash is either already at the car wash, or that someone is bringing it to them there for some reason?
If it's as unambiguous as you say, then the natural human response to that question isn't "you should drive there". It's "why are you fucking with me?" Or maybe "have you recently suffered a head injury?"
If you trust that the questioner isn't stupid and is interacting with you honestly, you'd probably just assume that they were asking about an unusual situation where the answer isn't obvious. It's implicitly baked into the premise of the question.
That still doesn't make sense. I'm going to use another car, or borrow a car to drive to a carwash where my car I want to wash is and then....I guess leave it there? Or leave the car I came in?
This isn't a viable out for explaining why AI can't "reason" through this.
But why would they reason through it in that way? You haven't asked them to listen carefully and find the secret reason you're a dumb-ass in order to prove how smart they are. If they default to that mode on every query, that would just make them insufferable conversational partners, which is not the training goal.
Let me put it this way. If you were to prefix the prompts they used with "This is an IQ test: ", I wouldn't be surprised if most of the the models did much better. That would give them the context that the humans reading this article already have.
Personally I stopped using Facebook because even in the before-AI days it started becoming a glamour photo book of everyone you ever knew (and probably lots of people you only kind of sorta know), and while people certainly deserve to do and see great things, seeing it all shoved in your face every day becomes exhausting in a keeping-up-with-the-joneses kind of way.
I totally get that not everybody is like that, but I am, and so I stopped going to Facebook.
These days I'm in private Whatsapp groups for my direct family and so I learn about what they do, and not the random stuff that my neighbors and 20-years-past classmates did.
My wife is still active on Facebook and I actually do still visit occasionally to boost her posts but that's about it.
I agree with this a lot. In the late 2000s, which for me was when I was about 20, posts were very throwaway and low effort -- in a good way! You never really knew what you'd see when you logged in. Photos of stupid things or silly status updates, etc.
Over the next five years though, content gradually shifted to mainly image crafting. Over-processed photos, highlight reel curated trip photos, major life updates, etc. It felt like the bar was higher on what people would share, but unfortunately that removed a lot of the things that made FB fun in the first place.
I don't know whether it was a more universal shift or whether it had more to do with the age of my peers.
Correct. Of course, that wasn't the case in 1750 or 1900. It wouldn't have been possible then.
Hence why prior technological changes that increased productivity didn't result in living lives of extended leisure, despite some predictions to that effect. Instead people kept working to raise the overall standard of living to what could be achieved when using the new tools to their fullest extent. Doing more, not doing the same with less effort. As you say, we're not animals. We can strive for better.
The glass of the window does not have a frame. You want the glass to go into a rubber seal to really prevent air from getting in and whistling at high speeds. If there's a frame around it, then no problem, the seals move with the glass when you open the door. But if you don't have a frame then opening the door without retracting the glass will cause it to pull at the rubber seals. At best it'll wear the rubber faster, but eventually it'll pull the rubber seal out.
This is very common on cars where the windows don't have a frame. Before I had a Tesla I had a convertible Mustang. Because it was a soft top it didn't have the same kinds of seals. Instead it used lateral pressure to hold the window against some rubber. At freeway speeds the window would flex and let air in. Eventually the soft top started blocking the passenger side window from meeting the rubber, and there was always a 1/4" gap unless I rolled the window down a bit and then back up.
That paper is about mandatory masking and social distancing at the population level. It does not speak to the question of whether it's "worth it" to wear a mask on the train if you're the only one who is doing it.
A 3-year maternity/paternity leave guaranteed by law sounds so completely crazy and unworkable to me that I think I must be misunderstanding what you mean. Before I start pelting you with objections that might be based on a misunderstanding, do you want to fill in a bit more detail on how you envision such a policy working in practice?
I've tried to research this, because I am honestly trying to understand it. It has been surprisingly difficult to verify what the current parental rights are for Canada Post. The most recent info on the union website is dated 2004, but I think the same basic agreement is still in force? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, it's worth noting that the Canada Post leave policy it's obviously the result of a union negotiation, not a blanket government policy that applies to all jobs. The post office is the epitome of a stable job that doesn't change much, so is probably optimally able to offer longer parental benefits.
Anyway, it says:
> All pregnant employees are entitled to 17 weeks of unpaid maternity leave.... If you have worked for the post office for six months of continuous service, and if you are eligible for the Employment Insurance (EI) maternity leave benefits, you are eligible to receive paid maternity leave.... EI [government program] pays a basic rate of 55% of your average earnings, up to a maximum of $413 per week.... This amount is topped up with the SUB [Supplementary Unemployment Benefit from the union contract] to 93% of your weekly wage.
> If your spouse is giving birth, you are entitled to one day of leave with pay.
> Parental leave [without pay)] can be split between two parents, but the total number of weeks must not be more than 37. The total number of weeks or paternity and maternity leave must not be more than 52 weeks.
That's a far, far cry from 3 years of leave, much less 5. Like I said, it may be outdated, but I can't find any indication that it has changed, and I don't want to spend my whole day on this.
Where are you getting this 5 year number? 5 years sounds truly insane and I have real trouble believing it. Even assuming that's split between the two parents, can a family have 6 children 2.5 years apart and spend a continuous 15 years of their careers on leave?
I don't know about Canada Post, but Wikipedia has a handy table listing the duration of parental leave. 3 years is a common option across various European countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Europe_and_Cent... Yes, parents with a lot of children could potentially spend a very long time out of work while still keeping their jobs, but it's rather rare to have so many children that it would become an issue.
Or maybe this wasn't a surprise to anyone and was already priced in, and then the final numbers were slightly better than the general consensus expectation? Could be that too.
But you're right, everyone who owns stock in Tesla is probably the member of a cult, no need to think any harder about it.
Yes but are those the marginal buyers and sellers that drive price movements? Most people in index funds are probably not flitting in and out of index positions at anything approaching even medium frequency.
Here's the original write-up of the incident:
https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...
reply