“Full accountability”, as in, they’re still fired, he still have his big paycheck and assorted bonuses, and the more general “fuck them” attitude will remain.

That’s not accountability, that’s shitting on people and smiling about it.

Dude. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ger.12294 (and many other) actual research paper and meta analysis are saying you’re wrong.

They would start to “seriously consider the possibility that perhaps something was not right”

I understand what you mean. There is an important point here though; we’re not talking about friends, coworkers, that random barista, or anyone else finding out about you after the fact. We’re talking about parents and their kid.

And I’m not saying it is easy either. But it is the role of parents to look after their kid when they’re young. Nobody’s saying that’s easy, and nobody’s saying that some random busybody should have seen the sign. We’re talking about people that should have been the closest and the most warry about this situation.

It certainly is possible to miss it. But if the closest, most concerned, most incentivized to care people are not enough to at least have some fleeting suspicion about their kid’s behavior, then we may as well pull the collective plug of our specie outta the wall.

If someone is depressed enough to kill themselves, no amount of “more parenting” could’ve stopped that.

Parents are supposed to care for their child and look out for them. If you kid gets depressed enough to kill himself and you’re none the wiser at any point, I’d say more parenting is very much needed. We’re not talking about someone that cut contact with everyone and was living on their own, slowly spiralling there. We’re talking about a 14yo kid.

Not exactly, no. From other comments, it also have an incredibly high false positive rate, so it’s negative security.

Look, we can either look at facts and check the claims of that company that we’re going to invest a lot of money into, or we can accept their bribe and move on. It’s all about efficiency.

Some footage of tesla’s full self driving disagrees.

“As the healthiest person… as the healthiest American… there is no one healthier than me… as the healthiest, there is no need to release these… my medical records are stellar… so perfect. I’m great. These records are so great, there you have it. I’m perfectly… yes… perfectly healthy.” - Trump

Well, I tried. I feel that it lacks some attacks to their opponent, but I can’t dumb myself down enough to do more than that.

AI will not find a magic solution. Besides, we already have quite a few directions that would help, but we’re not acting on them. Pilling more “solutions” over them won’t change that.

This really sounds like the parody of rich people that think they can eat and breath safely as long as they have money, the rest of the world be damned.

Move, yeah. To Firefox… meh. The writing’s not on the wall yet, but we’re not going to ignore the very heavy signaling Mozilla has been doing for years now.

Spec says 4.

You’re right, they aren’t google. Not for lack of trying though.

You see posts putting some shade over Mozilla, and your immediate reaction is “it feels almost coordinated”. Well, that may be. But it would be hard to distinguish a “coordinated attack” from a “that’s just the things they’re doing, and there’s report on it” article, no? Especially when most of it can be fact-checked.

In this particular case, those abandoned projects got picked up by other… sometimes. And sometimes not. But they were abandoned. There’s no denying that.

If you want some more hot water for Mozilla, since you’re talking about privacy and security, you’d be interested in their recent switch regarding these points. Sure, the PR is all about protecting privacy and users, but looking into the acts, the message is a bit more diluted. And there’s always a fair amount of people that are ready to do the opposite of what you claims; namely discarding all criticism because “Mozilla”, when the same criticism are totally fair play when talking about other big companies.

Being keen on maintaining user privacy, system security, and trust, is not the same as picking a “champion” and sticking to it until the end. Mozilla have been doing shady things for half a decade now, and they should not get a free pass because they’re still the lesser evil for now.

We’ve always been good at walking away, closing our ears, turning a blind eye…

No. We’re all waiting for this guy to activate it so we can get to work.

Even better, they took actual extensions and made them built-in and impossible to remove. The work was already done to keep a lightweight browser with extra features in option, and they reverted it.

It’s been going for years now. We just don’t want to move away because, frankly, there’s little viable alternatives.

“curated wallpapers” including random generated stuff, and “shares profits” on a 50/50 basis, for a shitty app developed by what looks like three fivers in a trench coat.

The point is, they don’t get “competent”. They get better at assembling pieces they were given. And a proper stack with competent developers will already have moved that redundancy out of the codebase. For whatever remains, thinking is the longest part. And LLM can’t improve that once the problem gets a tiny bit complex. Of course, I could end up having a good rough idea of what the code should look like, describe that to an LLM, and have it write actual code with proper variable names and all, but once I reach the point I can describe accurately the thing I want, it’s usually as fast to type it. With the added value that it’s easier to double check.

What remains is providing good insight on new things, and understanding complex requirements. While there is room for improvement, it seems more and more obvious that LLM are not the answer: theoretically, they are not the right tool, and seeing the various level of improvements we’re seeing, they definitely did not prove us wrong. The technology is good at some things, but not at getting “competent”.

Also, you sweep out the privacy and licensing issues, which are big no-no too.

LLM have their uses, I outline some. And in these uses, there are clear rooms for improvements. For reference, the solution I currently use puts me at accepting around 10% of the automatic suggestions. Out of these, I’d say a third needs reworking. Obviously if that moved up to like, 90% suggestions that seems decent and with less need to fix them afterward, it’d be great. Unfortunately, since you can’t trust these, you would still have to review the output carefully, making the whole operation probably not that big of a time saver anyway.

Coding doesn’t allow much leeway. Other activities which allow more leeway for mistakes can probably benefit a lot more. Translation, for example, can be acceptable, in particular because some mishaps may automatically be corrected by readers/listeners. But with code, any single mistake will lead to issues down the way.

It is perfectly possible to run anti-cheat that are roughly as good (or as bad, as it often turns out) without full admin privilege and running as kernel-level drivers. Coupled with server-side validation, which seems to be a dying breed, you’d also weed out a ton of cheaters while missing the most motivated of them.

As someone who lurks around in different communities (to some extent; Steam forums, reddit, lemmy, mastodon, and a few game-centered discord servers), the issue is not much against anti-cheat for online play. It’s the nature of these piece of software that is the issue. It would not be the same if the anti-cheat was also forced on solo gameplay, but it is not the case here.

(bonus points for systems that allow playing on non-protected servers, but that’s asking a bit too much from some publishers I suppose)