Pictures were interesting, though.

Does anyone remember what I'm talking about? I'm wondering if there been any long-term takeaways for how well it ended up working.

If they had direct evidence that some author's instructions failed to ask for the case study to be fictionalized, I think they would have specifically said that. It's more definitive, and catches the journal in a lie.

I'm pretty sure what happened here is that:

1) The journal always asked for and thought they received fictionalized case studies.

2) It never occurred to them that they were presenting the case studies in a way that could be misinterpreted. (This is indefensible negligence, but I also understand how it could have happened "innocently".)

3) Once the issue came to light, they issues blanket corrections to every case study study to describe them as fiction because they asked for fiction and edited them all as fiction. (I.e., Didn't do any fact checking or independent confirmation, beyond medical broad strokes.)

4) At least one author didn't read the instructions carefully enough and sent in a real case study, which as the article says, wasn't caught by the editors during the review process. (And really, how would they catch it? If they thought they asked for fiction, they wouldn't be fact checking it.)

I actually think the disclaimer may be appropriate, even on the article that was written as a true story, if it wasn't reviewed as one.

> The journal decided when it first started publishing the article type “that the cases should be fictional to protect patient confidentiality,”

> While the instructions for authors for Paediatrics & Child Health has at times indicated the case reports are fictional, that disclosure has never appeared on the journal articles themselves.

> “The editor acknowledged that the editorial team is at fault for overlooking the fact that our case was real during the review process,”

It's pretty clear that the journal always thought of these as fictional vignettes, and either didn't realize or didn't care that that had not made that sufficiently clear to the readers. The New Yorker article clued them into the fact that it was a problem, so they added the correction to all of their case studies to clarify that they were intended to be fictional. In (at least) one case, the author also didn't realize they should be fictional, and submitted a real case study which has now been incorrectly corrected.

Here's the original write-up of the incident:

https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...

Let me put it this way. If you were to prefix the prompts they used with "This is an IQ test: ", I wouldn't be surprised if most of the the models did much better. That would give them the context that the humans reading this article already have.

If it's as unambiguous as you say, then the natural human response to that question isn't "you should drive there". It's "why are you fucking with me?" Or maybe "have you recently suffered a head injury?"

If you trust that the questioner isn't stupid and is interacting with you honestly, you'd probably just assume that they were asking about an unusual situation where the answer isn't obvious. It's implicitly baked into the premise of the question.

I honestly can't tell whether I'm supposed to interpret this as "The dads lost interest in Facebook before anyone else", or "Everybody got divorced."

Hence why prior technological changes that increased productivity didn't result in living lives of extended leisure, despite some predictions to that effect. Instead people kept working to raise the overall standard of living to what could be achieved when using the new tools to their fullest extent. Doing more, not doing the same with less effort. As you say, we're not animals. We can strive for better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erewhon

https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/legacy_imported_docu...

Also, it's worth noting that the Canada Post leave policy it's obviously the result of a union negotiation, not a blanket government policy that applies to all jobs. The post office is the epitome of a stable job that doesn't change much, so is probably optimally able to offer longer parental benefits.

Anyway, it says:

> All pregnant employees are entitled to 17 weeks of unpaid maternity leave.... If you have worked for the post office for six months of continuous service, and if you are eligible for the Employment Insurance (EI) maternity leave benefits, you are eligible to receive paid maternity leave.... EI [government program] pays a basic rate of 55% of your average earnings, up to a maximum of $413 per week.... This amount is topped up with the SUB [Supplementary Unemployment Benefit from the union contract] to 93% of your weekly wage.

> If your spouse is giving birth, you are entitled to one day of leave with pay.

> Parental leave [without pay)] can be split between two parents, but the total number of weeks must not be more than 37. The total number of weeks or paternity and maternity leave must not be more than 52 weeks.

That's a far, far cry from 3 years of leave, much less 5. Like I said, it may be outdated, but I can't find any indication that it has changed, and I don't want to spend my whole day on this.

Where are you getting this 5 year number? 5 years sounds truly insane and I have real trouble believing it. Even assuming that's split between the two parents, can a family have 6 children 2.5 years apart and spend a continuous 15 years of their careers on leave?

I agree, I can see how that's a potential edge case, though I don't think it's as likely to happen in practice as you do. Certainly, anybody who commits a crime to cause a payout should be barred from receiving that payout, though you can tell a plausible story where someone manages to conceal it. I also really really doubt that that's what happened in this particular case.