Like w3, the makers of the web accessibility checklist have a flash-bang of a website and noone appears to have cared enough to fix it

You do realise there's an insanely large gap in-between "everyone is a volunteer" and "everyone is full-time staff", right?

As per the article that's literally a selling feature

They do have a bunch of value adds, it just depends on which you use

It's really going to be a top-down destruction of everything

Very few companies seem to get into trouble for knowingly releasing products that are either faulty, insecure, or actively dangerous

Show someone a list of resumes with an "applicant score*" and they'll naturally ignore the ones with a low ranking

*scores are generated with AI, mistakes may be made, use only as a guide and verify results

I feel like that's a result of prior bad experience. Noone goes into university, or even primary school a blank slate.

It's very easy to fall into a trap where education is transactional if that's what was modelled to you or that's how previous teachers treated you

They're explicitly not writing papers. The fake citations are created and inserted by the LLM

I kind of hate the idea, but you probably could do a lazy LLM check of every paper and every citation and have it flag possible wrong (second sense) citations for human review

But you'd need a LOT of tokens and a LOT of human-hours

Coders don't all have those kind of security hygiene instincts either