fartfeatures

I'll wank my way and you wank yours.

The LLM is citing it's sources and I follow up on them. Your attempt at a gotcha is interesting in that I think it says more about your relationship with AI than mine.

How do you know any explanation is correct from any source? That is not unique to LLMs.

Absolutely, this week I learnt about:

- Kalman Filters

- Bayesian Tracking

- Hybrid Logical Clocks

I was able to ask questions and understand the current state of the art.

We need to be able to flash credentials online whilst keeping our identities private. It would be useful to know some things about each other whilst still keeping as much privacy as possible.

> I mourn for the generations that will never get to use their brains.

If you aren't using the incredible technology we have around us right now to accelerate your learning then it is us that should be mourning your loss of imagination.

My experience was different. I'd post on StackOverflow as an absolute last resort when I couldn't solve my problem any other way. The knowledge there was great, the kindness was sorely lacking. That's what ultimately did it in if you ask me. It got a (deserved in my opinion) reputation for unkindness way before LLMs came on the scene.

Anyone that knows the subject matter well enough will spot the LLMs mistakes and correct them. If you don't know the subject matter well enough to spot a mistake then you don't know the subject matter well enough.

I think you might be letting perfect be the enemy of good here. Right now some students are using an LLM to do all of their work. I don't suggest for a moment my method is perfect but I do claim it could be better than the status quo (or at least warrants further investigation in my opinion).

I'd push back slightly on this: I spend more of my time reading / reviewing code than writing it yet I still find reading / reviewing code much more mentally demanding. I don't think I'm alone in that.

The people that do their own work would be at a huge advantage as the LLM(s) can work as reviewers instead of doing the work so there is more chance of catching a mistake before you lose 20%.

On top of that there will be some issues where the LLM is just plain wrong. Being able to work out when that is the case is a hugely useful skill in 2026. It is also something the people who blindly feed their work into an LLM and print its answer without reading it will be unable to discover. Much to their own detriment.

I've always wanted to find out if this would work:

If I knew most of my students were using LLMs I would encourage the rest of them to use them too. I would then change the marking criteria such that if they get a single point wrong that's 20% off the entire grade. 5 mistakes gets you a big fat zero.

LLMs are great but they make mistakes. At this point your students would have had to spend so long checking, re-checking and triple checking the LLM's output that they will have accidentally learn what they need to. They will likely need to cross-reference multiple LLMs and at least have read their output which is likely an upgrade on today.

Or some variation of the above, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

I thought they were skipping the M6 pro chips (or is that just the max and ultra?) to accelerate AI focused M7.

Even more so when you consider that the answers to unsolved problems likely compose with existing knowledge. We don't know what other discoveries these initial discoveries will unlock.

Agreed, I didn't realise there had been a CVE.

Apologies I didn't see there had been a CVE. I completely retract my statement.

It is unfortunate nobody tipped anyone off downstream.

Was that hero unit header text supposed to be sung in the voice of Ja Rule?

My existing sessions are working fine but I cannot create new ones.

I'd be worried about securely erasing my data when returning a leased model.

That's an extreme risk to them buying at inflated retail prices when supply is improving and prices are about to come down. Scalpers arent a large enough group to act as a cartel.

They really aren't. AI commit messages are much more thorough and correct than some of the stuff I've seen humans do over the years e.g. Fix, Fixup, Fixed some Stuff, Should work now, Definitely should work now etc etc etc.

Redundancy is just waste wearing a trench coat etc etc.

EO/IR

This is something that can't escape people making such statements but never seems to be addressed. Perhaps it is unaddressable as the original statement is grounded in emotion not reason?

I'm not convinced that is true. The JCB digger didn't put groundworkers out of business. A consultant that can get more done in a day is worth a lot more than one who can't. There is still skill required in wielding the tool of the day and that skill is marketable.

Standard Operating Procedure.

Sure but isn't that the definition of clickbait?

Either that or Apple don't want to lose their 30% until they are forced to, one jurisdiction at a time. I guess we all need to make our own inference as to which is more likely.

Why as an Apple user in the UK am I considered too dumb to use a 3rd party app store but if I were 30 miles away in France I would be considered intelligent enough to cope? Because this was never about my safety. It was about their 30% as correctly supposed above.

I'm very clumsy and I've never hit the play button by accident. What are you guys doing that makes it so easy to accidentally click the play button? Are you using the mac with the touch bar or something?