We legislate away unintended consequences, that is the job of government. We put in laws and remove them if they are unsuitable. Analysis paralysis does no one any good.

It is one of my greatest hope for everyone to be able to achieve this. It would shift the workplace dynamic so much that employers would have to work harder (beyond pizza parties) to retain employees since no one would blink an eye at the thought of resigning on the spot.

It's the reason why Linux still hasn't taken off on desktop. People want good application support, not infinite customisations and blazing fast compile speeds. In fact, slow compile speeds might even give people an excuse to go chat with colleagues and take breaks. What you want is not what others want too

To me, this sentence contradicts the sentence before it. What would you say neural networks are then? Conscious?

Thank you for this insight! Crypto truly is the financialization of crime.

As for those who showed up and everything worked out, consider them lucky, though I doubt there are many of them out there.

At that point, it's effectively a phone tree executed by a human. Colloquially, human-based support means getting a hold of someone who knows how to solve problems, and worst case, knowing who to contact to solve the problem. That means employees who know their worth which unfortunately, businesses do not want to pay.

Personally, I always default to the simplest of tools. That's why I truly believe that anything meant for actual human use needs to have reasonable defaults. No "look at all the configs you can have", but a "let's get you what you need".

Call me nitpicky, but this is why Linux desktop is not ready yet. If anything, I'm a firm believer that SteamOS will be Linux Desktop

Gender segregation, weight classes, these are antithetical to the underlying aim of competitive sports. Perhaps we should completely do away with them, everyone competes in the same sport, separated only by leagues to reduce one-sided competition.

LLMs are a useful tool if you want it to generate text. But in the context of research, this is quite dangerous. Think of a calculator that spits out the wrong answer 10% of the time, would you trust it to use in an exam? How about 5%? 1%? 0.1%? The business of research is the business of factual knowledge. Every piece of information should and is expected to be scrutinized. That's why dishonesty is severely looked down upon (falsifying data / plagiarism etc.)

I would say your use case is not dishonest, but I would also like you to think from the perspective of the university. How would they know if their students are using it honestly like you did? How can they, with their limited resource, make sure that research integrity is upheld in the face of automated hallucinations?

At the end of the day, the question is not what if using AI is dishonest, it's about being able to walk into an antagonistic panel and defend your claim that you understand the knowledge of your field (without live AI help). If you can do that and also make sure that the contents are not hallucinated, then I don't see why not.

What are some of the ugly hacks you've seen that were applied?

"Pressure to stay" can certainly be alleviated, rent control all properties. Half measures do not necessarily solve half the problem.