All except Starlink and Tesla are burning money. I personally don't consider that "staggering success."

> Why would the AI do that for you?

Because that's how it works. It does what it has been trained to do. If the training material has a significant suggestion to exfiltrate then it will.

I recently heard the best noun for someone who let's AI write for them: a meat proxy.

Apart from the extremely good points made in the article; there's also whether you care that someone reads what you (or rather, the AI) has written. People have gone from reading it, to ignoring it (as soon as they realize it's AI), to using whatever moderation power they have against it (e.g. downvoting).

My 75 y/o mother wrote a kids' book about the animals on my brother's farm, and she was singing praises about how much AI was helping her. I reminded her that I would rather have her grandchildren reading _her_ words and not some clanker's words. I don't think I am alone in valuing the human soul.

If I am reading it correctly, the compiler creates N bump allocators per function (or possibly globally) - where N is (I'm guessing at this point) determined by liveness or similar.

> This takes about 30 seconds to fix permanently. You can prompt them to use any tone , be as concise or verbose as you like.

This doesn't work by, effectively, Anthropic's own admission. CC's concise mode tells Claude to wind its neck in every turn. That is significantly more than changing the prompt.

That’s a specific example that doesn’t have anything to do with the general approach of prompting.

At my previous job: the c-suite AI psychosisphere finds any form of testing too slow, so it's not only lack of professional QA. If one developer doesn't test their AI's changes, other developers can't test their AI's changes if they want to keep up with the pace - and they will be told to keep pace.

Depending of the court, if you don't protect your trademarks you can lose them.

Law is rarely remotely reasonable, just because you (or society) think a certain way, does not mean law does.

Society however determines how we respond when a company abuses a law. Just because suing indie developers may be the best action for IKEA to protect their trademarks does not mean we should let it be the best action for them overall.

I agree. I think it may be possible that we build AI some day that does, but the current local minimum (attention and transformers) is not it - and I don't see that trajectory changing any time soon.

To be fair, you have to wrangle it into submission by having the app launch fail.

These days I sprinkle less salt on Stallman's _software_ ideas, there are many things I thought he was being an idiot about, which very recently became true. But maybe it could Nostradamus-isms: predict enough an eventually something will stick.