I will keep an ear out and let you know. I primarily hear of engineering positions on software where stability is key due to the industry I focus on (Science, Engineering, Research). They are the industries where you have to plan long-term to keep the max compatibility and ease of use. Adding in AI features could be useful, however if it damages the key functionality it is simply not worth the risk. It is still the case with some new software that is being built for new equipment.
It greatly depends on what I am doing. If I am using common libraries especially when using JS it is particularly handy, similar with Python. When you branch out into the more obscure it's accuracy and knowledge ends up being unsurprisingly limited.
There are plenty of alternative software needs that do not need to be AI based nor do they need to change tactics due to the current obsession with AI.
If you are using the most commonly available AI and have an average ability of perfecting a search term, right now AI is not a particularly useful tool in learning anything. It is far too inaccurate to learn anything challenging. The key term here is could, and yes it is possible but there is nothing yet to say we shall get there.
As much as I love the idea of these secure messaging apps, until I see how a company responds to government intimidation I am always wary of being too invested and trustworthy of the marketing.
I can understand the comp being a motivator, but stress. L24 and N24 has always seemed ludicrous. That's insane micromanaging. Is it really unacceptable for something to take more than a work day? Not every task can be broken down that way, you also sometimes change something which breaks something else so you are actually further back. Plus when do you plan work?
I think the key thing here is, it's highly unlikely you need meetings every single day with staff overseas and if you do there is usually a crossover hour. You don't need to both be in constant contact to do good work. You can easily work in different time zones without having a significantly different schedule.
I mean this much is clear within the physics community that we haven't found a complete understanding of quantum physics. We can explain what we can test and view but that is it. Wrong is such a strong term but I am sure some aspects will be revised with new information. We won't be spot on with everything.
I would recommend reading Chiara Marletto's book on Constructor Theory which is an attempt at breaking physics into fundamental can and can nots, which is a start for the next step of determining the missing physical rules.
They allow companies a legal right to attack those who host for archival purposes. This makes it hard for people such as the internet archive to carry on. Archiving and collecting digital works of art and therefore the code behind it, should have the same as physical works.
DRM is a whole different kettle of fish that I agree also needs to be solved with all media forms.
I think all art and media should be preserved. It's been clear for decades current copyright laws aren't fit for purpose. Fair use within books is for collection so it should be for digital.
I would disagree. They maybe don't teach in the way that would be ideal for each individual student (because that isn't possible when classes are in the 10's of students), and some of course are fundamentally terrible as is the same in every single profession, however they provide lots of other value than just teaching. They provide comfort and care and security for those children who have a poor home life. Even if they don't teach the child more than 40 % of what they should teach, what they offer in other ways is more valuable.
Everyone can provide value to the world if we accept them for who they are, and what they love and can offer. The issue lies when we, as a society, decides what is valuable and what isn't.
Considering just how quickly others followed it's also obviously not the case. Infact the best AI software as in most useful is not theirs. Claude is far more reliable.
Wikipedia is useful up to a point for sure. I feel whether it could be a expansion of Wikipedia in it's current use case, but for emerging research and niche topics it can sometimes be less useful.
I haven't personally used the mentioned services as they aren't in my field, however what is the accuracy of their results? Are they double checked? I don't find LLMs particularly accurate in my field (that's being kind), if anything I find they make up sources that simply don't exist.
I mean poor UX has no excuse but slow speed can be reasoned if it makes the quality of the service better.
Often big companies are the least efficient. And big companies can still make mistakes or have very inefficient processes. There was already a perfectly simple solution to the issue that could have been utilised prior to this and overall still the most efficient solution.
Also, everyone does dumb things, even smart people do dumb things. I do research in a field that many outsiders would say you must be smart to do (not my view) and every single one of us does dumb shit daily. Anyone who thinks they don't isn't as smart as they think they are.
I always wonder if the days of search engines for specific topics could return. With LLM's providing less than accurate results in some areas, and Google, bing, etc being taken over by adverts or well organised SEO, there feels like a place for accurate, specialised search.
You would be wrong. I am actually quite perky, I just don't suffer foolish admin tasks easily. I only have meetings with a goal (not just for the sake of it), and then I simply make sure it is clear what the solution is, no matter whose idea it was. I don't care about being right or wrong in a meeting, I care that we have a useful outcome and it isn't an hour wasted. Having a meeting whereby the outcome of a meeting is unclear is a complete waste of time, and is not solved by tech, it is solved by how your meetings are managed.
How do you check accuracy of these? You stated brainstorming as an example that they are great at. As obviously experts are experts for a reason.
My issue here is that a lot of this is solved by good practice, for example,travel management and expenses have been solved, company credit card. I don't need one slightly better piece of software to manage one terrible piece of software to solve an issue that has a solution.
As someone who struggles slightly with maths despite working in physics and engineering, I am always in awe of those who can do math so easily. You do occasionally come across those who can do math with minimal intermediate steps and it is mind blowing to watch.
I would imagine this research is the starting point to prove viability. It isn't about solving issues that haven't been solved, it is often a good point to find new techniques to improve upon current ones eventually that can then be applied to other issues.
(Plus yes, I expect funding was easy to get because of AI)