The article, the teacher, and the general academic community skips the hard question when it comes to AI and that's whether these exams are testing knowledge that is still worth internalizing in the same way?
Academia has a long history of lagging behind acceptance of new cognitive tools where they claim to want to defend the students, but instead defend the assignments of the past at the expense of the students. Calculators were treated as threats to learning, even though they ultimately freed students to focus on higher-level math and provably improved their abilities across many different studies. Internet sources were dismissed as less legitimate than books, as if “published in an outdated book from the 70s” magically made it more trustworthy than the most scrutinized reference sources online.
It is not clear from the article exactly how much of this course falls into that category, but if the answers can be produced trivially with a prompt and chatgpt, then maybe memorizing that material is no longer the right educational target. Academia desperately needs to redesign itself around AI as a cognitive tool students should be trained to leverage. If a question is trivially answered by a prompt with it, then you need harder questions that actually require students to push beyond that. Simply removing AI from the equation, calling it cheating, and pretending that it isn't an ever-present asset people are expected to leverage in real life is naive and just repeats the mistakes of the past.
Sure, the tweet was about their releases since 2016 when I assume this particular dev was involved, not the original release. To be clear, I'm not saying their games aren't good or even that they didn't have some success. 20 million in sales for their entire franchise isn't bad, it isn't the 500 million in sales we see from CoD or Battlefield, but it isn't bad. I actually liked the games, but claiming they are the "BEST GAMES EVER!" and having the gall to mention Google where no Google results ever show them as the best is where I have an issue. We don't need to spread misinformation like that and if the dev actually believes this I can only assume they live in a bubble.
Wow, that tweet claiming the Doom series is the best first person action game in the entire industry is crazy. That dev has to be completely disconnected from the rest of the game industry or delusional. No stats support that claim at all. Not player count, not sales, not reviews, nothing. The first Doom was certainly industry defining, but it and its sequels have never been considered the best by anyone except apparently this dev. If they were the best, they probably wouldn't be getting laid off right now.
It's not all that surprising that people were worried and believed this. The AI companies and infrastructure companies partnering with them have spent a lot of money and time trying to convince people this is the case year after year. The critical clue people miss is that everyone claiming that has very clear financial incentives to convince people that's the case even when they know it isn't. Anyone who was actually building with LLMs and judging for themselves based on its performance knew fully well that wasn't the case year after year.
"LLMs are as good as almost any security researcher"
Oh really? If LLMs were as good as almost any security researcher then you wouldn't be getting flooded by bullshit reports from them. You'd be receiving legitimate reports instead.
That's right, Airbus is responsible for the faulty equipment onboard, not pilot training. Air France is responsible for its pilots' operational training and recurrent training.
Gun rights are generally not gone forever. Federal law bars people adjudicated mentally defective or formally committed to a mental institution, neither of which include a temporary mental hold for suicide watch. State laws vary, but none of them have a law where a single temporary hold means "gun rights gone forever." Some states let people go buy a gun the day they are released from suicide watch, despite how irresponsible that sounds.
You can see in their stats view they have a lot of providers/nodes connected but practically no actual demand/consumers. They just launched and I'm sure get providers was top of their agenda, but it's essentially unusable as a provider unless they perform some serious lift to get actual paying customers.
Not quite the same. Here it wasn't just the overreaction from some weak authority figure. The arresting cop had to knowingly violate established laws. The officers who pursued the charge had to have done the same. That's systematic corruption and failure in the local law enforcement who imo all need to be investigated and fired asap. It's less some weak authority overreacting and more like a whole lot of incompetent people who are supposed to uphold the law actively violating it.
Hi, I'm a Staff engineer with 14+ years of experience. Spent the last 8.5 years building an early stage startup and following it through acquisition. I supported the post-acquisition transition by training and mentoring offshore engineers and helping maintain continuity as the company shifted from startup execution to standardized enterprise delivery.
My background spans backend engineering, infrastructure, and security, with hands-on work in Python, Rust, and TypeScript. I maintain open source projects and contribute when I can to core Rust projects such as Clap and Cargo. I’m a good fit for teams that need pragmatic execution and someone comfortable owning hard problems across systems, platform, and DevSecOps.
This is essentially 'License Laundering as a Service.' The 'Firewall' they describe is an illusion because the contamination happens at the training phase, not the inference phase. You can't claim independent creation when your 'independent developer' (the commercial LLM) already has the original implementation's patterns and edge cases baked into its weights.
In order to really do this, they would need to train LLMs from scratch that had no exposure whatsoever to open source code which they may be asked to reproduce. Those models in turn would be terrible at coding given how much of the training corpus is open source code.
If the Ars Technica editorial process requires assuming reporters don't fabricate quotes, then their process is inadequate. That's like a software company letting junior engineers release directly to production with just a spellcheck and no real process to catch errors. Major publications like The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc. have a dedicated fact-checking department that is part of the process and needs to give the ok before any article is published. Why is their process so deficient by comparison? Why wasn't there any fact checking?
The idea that China hasn't 'attacked anyone' in 40 years is factually incorrect. In 1988, they engaged in a deadly naval skirmish with Vietnam over the Johnson South Reef. More recently, the PLA engaged in fatal border clashes with India in the Galwan Valley (2020). On top of direct skirmishes, they have engaged in constant gray-zone aggression: violently ramming Philippine and Vietnamese vessels in the South China Sea, firing water cannons at supply ships, and surrounding Taiwan with live-fire military blockades. That doesn't even touch on the internal human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Multiple international bodies and governments have recognized what they are doing to Uyghurs since 2014 as genocide. Finally, it's hard to ignore their devastating handling of COVID-19. The active suppression of information, punishment of early whistleblowers, and refusal to cooperate with international investigations resulted in unprecedented worldwide damage, amounting to an act of gross global endangerment.
The old path of 'military invents it, civilians eventually get it' (like the Space Race or early ARPANET) hasn't been true for decades. Today, almost all major technological leaps like the modern internet, search engines, smartphones, commercial drones, etc. start in the commercial consumer sector first. The global consumer market dwarfs the defense market, which means the private sector has vastly more capital for R&D. Government payscale caps out ~$190k-$200k/year for specialized roles without some congressional workaround. The top AI researchers at OpenAI, Anthropic, Google etc. make ~$1m-$5m+/year for total compensation. The government couldn't afford to hire the right talent and the right talent likely would refuse based on moral, ethical, and rational principles with the current government.
"1000 PRs/week" with no breakdown of complexity or value is a vanity metric. If these are mostly migrations, boilerplate, and bug fixes on previous Minion PRs that were bug ridden, then you've just created 1000 code reviews/week to waste human time rubber-stamping. That's not productivity, that's busywork with extra steps.
It's like measuring productivity by how many people you pull into meetings each week. The CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual literally recommends holding as many meetings as possible with as many people as possible. The CIA should add "open as many PRs with AI as possible" to their list. Bonus sabotage points if the PRs are made from ambiguous "one-shot" attempts described in Slack with no follow up clarification.
The hole is closed with per-site pseudonyms. Your wallet generates a unique cryptographic key pair for each site so same person + same site = same pseudonym, same person + different sites = different, unlinkable pseudonyms.
"The actual correct way" is an overstatement that misses jfaganel99's point. There are always tradeoffs. EUDI is no exception. It sacrifices full anonymity to prevent credential sharing so the site can't learn your identity, but it can recognize you across visits and build a behavioral profile under your pseudonym.
If AI is good enough that juniors wielding it outproduce seniors, then the juniors are just... overhead. The company would cut them out and let AI report to a handful of senior architects who actually understand what's being built. You don't pay humans to be a slow proxy for a better tool.
If the tools get good enough to not need senior oversight, they're good enough to not need junior intermediaries either. The "juniors with jetpacks outpacing seniors" future is unrealistic and unstable—it either collapses into "AI + a few senior architects" or "AI isn't actually that reliable yet."
Apparent hypocrisy and injustice in government policy is an ugly thing in the world that should be pointed out and eliminated through public awareness and scrutiny.
Academia has a long history of lagging behind acceptance of new cognitive tools where they claim to want to defend the students, but instead defend the assignments of the past at the expense of the students. Calculators were treated as threats to learning, even though they ultimately freed students to focus on higher-level math and provably improved their abilities across many different studies. Internet sources were dismissed as less legitimate than books, as if “published in an outdated book from the 70s” magically made it more trustworthy than the most scrutinized reference sources online.
It is not clear from the article exactly how much of this course falls into that category, but if the answers can be produced trivially with a prompt and chatgpt, then maybe memorizing that material is no longer the right educational target. Academia desperately needs to redesign itself around AI as a cognitive tool students should be trained to leverage. If a question is trivially answered by a prompt with it, then you need harder questions that actually require students to push beyond that. Simply removing AI from the equation, calling it cheating, and pretending that it isn't an ever-present asset people are expected to leverage in real life is naive and just repeats the mistakes of the past.