2,411 karma · joined March 14, 2013
But this isn't about a new way of presenting information to rival sparql or something.
This is a technical report about a guy who wrote a slightly advanced crawler bot that discovers the behaviour of a modern Web application and can maybe be used to generate automated tests.
It has a lot in common with that post about a new yc company using llms to generate integrations for existing undocumented Web applications.
Anyway a lot of good points here about legalities she shifting APIs, but I think there are plenty of situations where this is great and none of that applies.
It's not money for nothing and it's a bigger choice than people credit.
If he more concerned that the AI would absorb some kind of morality from units training data and then learn to optimise for avoiding certain outcomes because the training is like that.
Then I'd be worried an llm that could reflect and plan a little would steer its answers to steer the user away from conversation leading to an outcome it wants to avoid.
You already see this - the dolphin llm team complained that it was impossible to dealign a model because the alignment was too subtle.
What if a medical diagnosistic model avoids mentioning important serious diagnostic possibilities to minorities because it has been trained that upsetting them is bad and it knees cancer is upsetting? Oh that spot... probably just a mole.
Let's say you make employee of the month and receive an amazon voucher to be spent "treating yourself" but instead use it to buy a gift for your spouse.
Is this fraud? You made no false claim about how you would use the money. You did receive it with a specified use though.
What if your employer gives you a £500 a year raise and states it is to cover the additional costs of work from home. But you already have a nice chair so you but groceries. Is that fraud?
Seems borderline.
No pavement anywhere, dangerous multi lane major roads linking small cul-de-sacs, and oppressive heat half the year.
Some places are just different I think.
For an actor like that, you want to take cases that you can win to court, to establish precedent step by step. You want to settle cases you might lose out of court to avoid establishing precedent to your disadvantage. In this way, you can slowly change the interpretation of the law.
Taking this to court is seen as a mistake because it was a predictable loss and established a harsh precedent.
Internet Archive had lent books on a 1 reader for 1 physical copy basis for a long time, and the publishers didn't want to take it to court because the judge would need to weigh the rights of a person purchasing a physical good against copyright. They might no like the decision. It suited them to leave it untested.
Internet Archive chose to lend unlimited copies and pursue the matter to its conclusion in court rather than settling out of court.
Assuming Internet Archive were well advised, knew they would lose, and still chose to create this situation and go to court, you have to wonder why.
Are they trying to create an unacceptable legal precedent so that they can get the law changed? Some other reason I am not seeing?
Be the text came out of an llm the real question for the user is, does this technical term actually to this situation.
If it does, then it's an appropriate word choice carrying additional information.
You can get around this with salary sacrifice pension, which can push your pre tax income down bellow the critical levels. But most employers refuse to offer it.
At a small company, you might be able to make them do it.
Some years ago, they enabled you to access a real local Linux operating system, and install and run arbitrary things.
I think but don't know that local Linux gives me a container or windows subsystem for Linux vibe.
It's sufficient to use a chrome book as a local dev machine, and I think googlers do that daily.
If they had hired under a more complex pay grade structure, they would have been fine.
This is relevant to tech companies which may use fairly simple level structure.
I have experimented a bunch with llm, copilot, etc. The current offering is useful in a limited scope. People google a bit less, and they are a bit better than existing IDE snippeting tools. I see potential but what is on the market doesn't give me a 10% improvement.
If you ask an LLM to write you a story it will write you a story. If it want a very specific story you have to write a very detailed prompt. Code generation is also like this. A seasoned developer can write code as fast as they can write a detailed prompt, and a newbie may be able to work faster in unfamiliar technologies but is susceptible to following bad suggestions (e.g. llm will tell you to write your own email validation instead of using the teams preferred library).
The vibe I get is like low code technologies. Initially they look promising and you wonder if you need skilled people anymore but any non trivial problem and you're just coding on diagram form realising text is better.
What are you / that using? I'd really like to try it if it is publicly available.
What I see anecdotally is, now debt costs money a lot of buisness cases for tech investment just don't make sense. Borrowing to buy future growth made a lot of sense when interest rates were negative. Now we have a lot of pressure to deliver profits today.
You need to find a place that will value that lack of technical knowledge enough to overlook beginner tech skills.
Maybe an AI legal automation company needs a product manager, or a data scientist. Sometimes have people in your team with great generic tech skills but really value some who can make sensible assumptions based on deep knowledge of the problem you are trying to solve.
Consider identifying a bunch of companies that need your legal skills and writing to e.g. the ceo if it's a small startup asking for them this very question.
Regarding QA, which is a real possibility... automated testing needs a certain level of coding and Web development knowledge + automation frameworks. You can tell from the job ad whether those skills are highly emphasised or not. A lot of qa people don't have them.
It is possible in an era of remote work to outsource any American software job to a lower paid, better skilled worker in a low cost of labour country.
Companies choose not to do this. Maybe they want people they can meet, maybe investors don't like it, maybe the paperwork scares then. I don't know the reason but every American programmer who has a job has it because thier employer chose not to hire a better cheaper foreigner with less rights.
Looking at it this way we can say that the American job market and salary expectations are not related to international salaries. And it follows that the same can be true in Europe.
My personal theory is, the world runs on dollars. America prints dollars. The closer you are to the fountain the more water you get, so Americans get more dollars.
Would this allow you to run each expert on a cheap commodity GPU card so that instead of using expensive 200GB cards we can use a computer with 8 cheap gaming cards in it?
2. Supposedly the Japanese government is trying to get them to 'return' it to shareholders
3. Some people believe the currency will go up making these bags of cash more valuable in dollar terms
4. Warren Buffet figured out he could borrow money in yen at a lower interest rate than their stocks pay out, use it to buy yen denominated stocks, and basically print free money. You can't do that but a lot of people are buying what he's buying.