I don't think this is climate change propaganda, but your application of this study by evoking it in a discussion about climate change feels like it.

> I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.

They're saying that main stream media sources are what can be used to define something is notable or not. The question isn't "Is the Daily Stormer" notable (it is), it's should the daily stormer be usable as a source to determine if something is notable or not (it shouldn't be, obviously).

Wikipedia is: mediawiki (and its development), wikimedia cloud services (which I built) that runs tools and provides services for developers (including volunteers and tool authors), server/network infrastructure, wikidata, search, etc.

Mediawiki itself is extremely complicated to build and run, and it's running for numerous languages across multiple projects (wikipedia, commons, wikidata, wiktionary, etc etc).

I'm leaving out a lot of the other things handled by the engineering teams, but it's considerably more complex than you think it is.

I think some of yall need to think about how this would be run if it was a company. There would be thousands of employees, realistically.

There has to be some mechanism of determining what should and shouldn't be usable as a source.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48280513

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Back to the original point, though: most software engineering work isn't novel. Most people are working on slightly different iterations of the same thing, but with the aim of different products. You can have completely different products that use nearly the same patterns as most other services.

To put it bluntly: we don't need AI to generate novel code for the vast majority of the software being built.

Southern states have been stripping people's rights away for decades.

You're part of the problem here.

Based on current laws, does this even have to be disclosed? Will laws be passed to require disclosure?

That's the whole problem. Car transportation simply doesn't scale, so there will never be an option to use waymo that's as fast and cheap as the subway. It's worth calling out that an efficient train system is vital to keeping car traffic moving quickly, because once everyone is in a car, it's gridlock.

Lately I'm not sure that's the case.

Obviously the intended use and design of AI isn't to scam the elderly, but it's extremely efficient at doing it, and has no guard rails to help prevent it.

Why is anyone allowed to make a digital copy of me, without my permission, and then use that to call my relatives? It should be illegal to use it and it should be illegal to even generate it. Sure, it's already illegal to defaud people, but that's simply not enough at this point. The AI companies producing these models should be held liable for this form of fraud, as they're not providing any form of protection.

You're exactly the person that this article is satirizing.

Sure, the AI isn't directly doing the scamming, but it's supercharging the ability to do so. You're making a "guns don't kill people, people do" argument here.