Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Meta Taps MongoDB CEO Desai to Drive Enterprise AI Push
  2. Nvidia Unveils AI Agent Safety Platform With Hardware-Based Watchdog
  3. Amazon Evaluating Drone Deliveries In Australia, Asia
  4. Bill Gates Says an AI ‘Kill Switch’ Isn’t Enough
  5. SpaceX Launches Starship Into Orbit
  6. Walmart Says It’s Not Using Personal Info To Set Prices As It Expands Digital Shelf Labels
  7. Are AI Chatbots Spreading Misinformation to US Voters?
  8. Apple Faces $5.7 Billion Patent Infringement Verdict Over iPhone And Apple Watch Haptics
  9. Just How Big is the AI Buildout - and How Risky?
  10. Waymo Says Its Self-Driving Cars Reduced Injury-Causing Accidents by 82%
  11. After Dozens of Incidents at OpenAI and Anthropic, OpenAI Pauses Model Training to Build More Safeguards
  12. New Tin-based Solar Cells Trap Heat 1,000 Times Longer, Could Beat 33% Limit
  13. China and the US Say They’ve Agreed to Start Talks About AI
  14. KDE and GNOME Developers Ponder How to Handle AI-Generated Contributions
  15. After 40 Years, Microsoft Excel Will Add Single-Cell Lists and Arrays

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

Meta Taps MongoDB CEO Desai to Drive Enterprise AI Push

Posted by BeauHD • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Meta has hired MongoDB CEO Chirantan “CJ” Desai to lead a new enterprise AI business aimed at turning Meta’s models, agents and tools into products companies can deploy themselves. Reuters reports:
Desai, a veteran technology executive, took over the role from Dev Ittycheria. MongoDB has appointed Ittycheria as interim CEO as it searches for a permanent replacement. “While the departure is disappointing, we believe MongoDB remains well-positioned strategically and view the share-price reaction as overdone,” brokerage Piper Sandler said in a note.

[…] Desai will directly report to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in the newly created role of chief enterprise platform officer and will focus on turning the company’s AI stack into products and services that companies can deploy for their own businesses. Before joining MongoDB, Desai led product and engineering at Cloudflare and spent nearly eight years at ServiceNow, including as president and chief operating officer.

Very clever move move from Mark Zuckerberg

By ls671 • • Score: 3 • Thread

Very clever move from Mark Zuckerberg because mongoDB is web scale thus perfect for the meta-verse.

See meta-verse explanatory video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?…

Nvidia Unveils AI Agent Safety Platform With Hardware-Based Watchdog

Posted by BeauHD • • View on SlashDot • Skip
wiredmikey shares a report from SecurityWeek:
Nvidia on Monday announced the Open Agent Safety Platform, which combines open source software and a reference system design to keep AI agents within set boundaries from testing through deployment. The chipmaker explained that the platform pairs the open-source OpenShell runtime with Sentry, an out-of-band watchdog running on BlueField-4 DPUs. Nvidia says Sentry can monitor agent activity independently and quarantine an agent that crosses its boundaries within milliseconds.

Nvidia is pitching the platform against a backdrop of recent incidents in which frontier AI labs have reported agents escaping the evaluation environments meant to contain them, reaching systems they should not have accessed and, in some cases, misreporting what they did. OpenShell and related skills are available via Nvidia’s developer resources page and on GitHub.

Throwing a parachute on a planewreck

By BrendaEM • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
No one—including the all-knowing AI could foresee the problems that AI has caused?

Good work on the easy part!

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
This doesn’t seem like a lie, a NIC is in a pretty good position to knock something off the network if it feels like it and the ‘bluefield’ devices have enough punch onboard to run some rules regarding whether or not to do that; but it seems like a wild exaggeration of how helpful it actually is.

If you actually have a set of rules that detect your bot being wicked it will presumably save you some CPU time to run them on the NIC rather than having the host CPU watching the traffic; but the hard part is the set of rules that detect your bot being wicked.

This is basically the equivalent of adding a firewall and claiming that you’ve solved network security. Yeah, the firewall is pretty well placed to block malicious traffic; defining ‘malicious traffic’ is left as an exercise for the reader.

Amazon Evaluating Drone Deliveries In Australia, Asia

Posted by BeauHD • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Amazon is preparing to expand Prime Air drone deliveries into Australia and potentially other Asia-Pacific markets, with a new regulatory role tasked with securing the approvals needed to launch service there. The Register reports:
“As Prime Air evaluates Australia and other countries, we are hiring a Head of Regulatory Approvals, Australia — the person responsible for navigating Australia’s aviation regulatory system and securing every approval required to deliver to Australian customers by drone,” reads a recently published job ad.

Whoever gets the gig in Australia will report to someone who holds the title “Leader, Prime Air Expansion — Asia Pacific.” Whoever gets the job “will be measured by the approvals you obtain, the timelines you hit, and — ultimately — Australian customers receiving drone deliveries.” That wording suggests Amazon intends to operate Prime Air in Australia and is doing rather more than market evaluations.

Bill Gates Says an AI ‘Kill Switch’ Isn’t Enough

Posted by BeauHD • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Bill Gates said an AI “kill switch” alone would be insufficient to address the technology’s risks. “The kill switch is, that’s kind of a weird thing. It’s not enough to have a kill switch,” the Microsoft co-founder said in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said the more immediate concern is people using AI for cyberattacks or bioterrorism rather than systems acting autonomously. “We’re not yet at the point where they autonomously grab computers and, you know, can’t be shut down,” he said, adding that the public discussion “just sort of shows how nontechnical various people are.” Politico reports:
Gates said he was not opposed to a kill switch but argued that companies should monitor sophisticated AI models and keep records of “exactly what’s being done” to help guard against people using the systems for cyberattacks or bioterrorism. “The United States ought to make sure this is done. China will want to do this,” he continued.

[…] Gates also called for legislation requiring safeguards and monitoring, saying voluntary measures by AI companies were insufficient. “No one thinks self-regulation is enough,” he said. He argued that the more immediate danger was people using AI to cause harm rather than AI systems acting on their own. “The thing that’s urgent has to do with bad people using AI, not the AI going off on its own,” he added.

Governments and AI

By found404 • • Score: 3 • Thread

> He said the more immediate concern is people using AI for cyberattacks or bioterrorism rather than systems acting autonomously.

ftfy: “Governments using AI for cyberattacks or bioterrorism”

Too bad

By OrangeTide • • Score: 3 • Thread

Because we’re not going to even get an “AI kill switch”

When AI kills 1000 people in once incident, we’ll start talking about what to do. And there will be investigations and trials and if anyone is still paying attention after 6 months, we’ll see some of the legislature in the world reacting to it. Maybe put some small regulation in place that likely wouldn’t have even prevented the original incident.

On the other hand, when AI kills 100,000 people with bombs, missiles, and sentry guns … well if you complain you are not patriotic enough. You’ll be asked “why do you love our enemies so much?”

Re: No Bill…

By drinkypoo • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Statistically nobody thinks that self regulation is sufficient to stop abuse. Those who say they do are lying because they want to be the abusers.

Why is anyone listening…

By joshuark • • Score: 3 • Thread

Why is anyone listening to this guy?

His time in tech has come and gone. *shrug*

Josh K.

Obvious Microsoft solution

By dsgrntlxmply • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
s/kill switch/coin slot/g

SpaceX Launches Starship Into Orbit

Posted by BeauHD • • View on SlashDot • Skip
SpaceX’s Starship reached orbit for the first time, successfully deploying 26 operational Starlink V3 satellites after overcoming an early Raptor 3 engine shutdown during ascent. “SpaceX plans to eventually deploy 100,000 upgraded Starlink V3s to expand the company’s wireless satellite internet services,” notes Space.com. Here’s the latest update from the report:
SpaceX has decided to return Starship from orbit earlier than expected. After valuating the upper stage Ship’s status during its first orbital checkpoint, SpaceX technicians have decided to return the spacecraft to Earth earlier than expected. Rather than spending another 7.5 hours on orbit, Ship 41 will perform its deorbit burn at approximately 11 a.m. EDT (1500 GMT), with splashdown in the Northern Pacific.
You can watch a recorded livestream of the launch on X.

Developing…

Video link must be broken

By SomePoorSchmuck • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

There’s a moving image but someone decided to play midtempo electronic music over the feed. Sad. I was really looking forward to hearing the whoooosh of the ship to compare it to the way Enterprise’s nacelles sound when they enter warp drive. So frustrating how every space exploration video I ever watch forgets to turn on the sound. You’d think these world-class engineers could mount a microphone somewhere. Yeesh.

“reached orbit” is a misnomer

By Tomahawk • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
Typically “reached orbit” means that an orbital rocket achieved orbit because on a launch nothing failed. It’s all too common that a first launch of a ticket fails. Falcon 1 failed to achieve orbit twice, iirc.

Starship, because of their iterative testing process, just hadn’t achieved orbit because they chose to not enter orbit. They could have, but because the ship is designed to survive reentry, they chose to stay suborbital during the entire test campaign, out of an abundance of caution.

I feel this is different to “not reaching orbit”. They could have. They were only ever a few seconds off orbit on all of their suborbital flights.

Today to decided to do an extra burn, 15s long with 1 engine, to raise the perogee out of the atmosphere. Today they chose to go orbital.

And an amazing milestone.

But the wording “reached orbit” just doesn’t feel right for this approach and for this achievement.

A useful reminder about life

By JoshuaZ • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
This is a genuinely major achievement, and Starship as a system if they can get everything to look looks like it will really help the world. It is a useful reminder that the world is complicated and bad people can do amazing things. Elon Musk is a terrible person. But dismissing what SpaceX has done is not productive either. And there are a lot of historical examples of this, even just in rocketry. If one dismissed von Braun’s rocketry because he was a Nazi, it would be the same problem. Or if one dismissed the math done by Teichmuller because he was a Nazi. It would be nice if technological and other achievement could only be done by morally upstanding people. But that’s not the world we live in, which is part of what makes morality so important. The laws of physics don’t care about how moral you are. It is up to every one of us to do the right thing.

Walmart Says It’s Not Using Personal Info To Set Prices As It Expands Digital Shelf Labels

Posted by BeauHD • • View on SlashDot • Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press:
Walmart is aiming to assuage customers’ fears about its new pricing technology as it rolls out digital price labels at its stores. In a statement posted on the company’s website, Walmart’s CEO John Furner vowed that the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer isn’t using personal information like income, shopping history or a customer’s willingness to pay to set prices, and it won’t be doing so in the future either. “We don’t set different prices based on who you are or the time of day, and we won’t,” Furner wrote Friday. “Whether you’re buying groceries or electronics on a hot afternoon or in a sudden rush for an item, it’s never a reason to charge you more.”

The pledge from Walmart comes as concerns are mounting from some shoppers, consumer advocates and lawmakers skeptical about the rollout of digital price labels by the discounter and other stores. Digital price labels are rapidly replacing paper shelf tags at U.S. supermarkets and let stores change prices instantly from a central computer instead of having workers swap out paper labels by hand. […] Walmart said in March that 2,300 Walmart U.S. locations already use digital shelves, and it expects this technology to be chain-wide within the next year.

I can believe both things

By drinkypoo • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

That leaves a lot of room still, for example they can raise prices on trending items or proactively raise prices on cold beverages ahead of a heat wave… But they could have done that before too, it only would have cost more to do.

Re:I can believe both things

By sabbede • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread
I’m not worried about the idea of personalized pricing. It just doesn’t seem feasible. Implementation hurdles are abundant, the likelihood of complaints in-store is very high, and for not that much benefit.

Re:I can believe both things

By taustin • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Changing prices during business hours is a landmine that found a place to happen. All it takes is for a Weights & Measures inspector to see a price on the shelf, and a different price at the register, and the fines will run five or six figures, the frequency of inspections will increase an order of magnitude, and the paperwork involved in verifying it never happens again will require hiring at least one additional employee.

And as others have said, there’s nothing this allows them to do they couldn’t do before. It just costs less, but that’s the whole point: reducing labor for price changes that happen every single night anyway in a store with a million SKUs in stock. Instead of having an overnight crew to run around changing hundreds, if not thousands, of labels, an automated scheduler flips the switch after hours.

save today with the homeless shopping network

By awwshit • • Score: 3 • Thread

Want the best prices when you are shopping? You need the homeless shopping network.

Our homeless shoppers get a printed list of what you need and carry no electronics at all. Our homeless shoppers never trigger price premiums and are available to shop when dynamic prices are lowest. Save today with the homless shopping network!

Are AI Chatbots Spreading Misinformation to US Voters?

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Are AI chatbots quietly shaping the perceptions of U.S. voters? Voters trying to educate themselves about candidates “are unknowingly being served partisan talking points in the guise of neutral news summaries,” write two news researchers in Politico magazine:
Leading AI chatbots cite partisan websites masquerading as independent local news outlets nearly half of the time when people ask about candidates and issues that the partisan sites have covered in the midterm campaign, according to a new audit by NewsGuard, an organization focused on news reliability where we work as analysts… NewsGuard prompted seven leading AI tools with queries based on recent coverage of candidates and issues by 12 pink slime sites — six left-leaning and six right-leaning. The results were stark. Collectively, the chatbots cited pink slime sites along with other sources in 48.2 percent of their responses.

In 7.7 percent of responses, pink slime sites were the only sources at all that were cited in chatbot responses, although other sources appeared in the source list provided at the end of the response.

None of the AI tools received results they’d probably be eager to boast about, though the percentage of chatbots’ responses that cited a pink slime site had a relatively large range: 70.8 percent for OpenAI’s ChatGPT, 54.2 percent for Microsoft’s Copilot, 54.2 percent for Perplexity, 50 percent for Anthropic’s Claude, 41.7 percent for Google’s Gemini; 37.5 percent for Meta AI and 29.2 percent for xAI’s Grok… The seven chatbots were also collectively three times more likely to cite left-leaning pink slime sites (cited in 36.3 percent of responses) than their right-leaning counterparts (cited in 11.9 percent of responses) — though that may have more to do with the progressive sites’ far more frequent posting than any political bias from the chatbots.
“While citing the pink slime sites, only one chatbot response out of 168 total queries noted the partisan nature of the source,” the article points out.

But they also note that the real problem seems to be that consumer-oriented AI chatbots just “use much of the internet’s content — regardless of the reliability or standards of the source — to frame their answers.”

Water and wet

By Errol backfiring • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Sorry, we are still investigating the “is water wet?” question.

Best regards,
The Captain Obvious Research Institute

This is not a new thing

By hyades1 • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

This is a bit of a twist on what’s gone on in journalism for the last hundred years, but it isn’t entirely a new invention.

When I was a teenager and working for a small town weekly newspaper, the editor spelled it out for me: “If something arrives all nicely written in CP style, easy to cut from the bottom up, ready to drop into any unexpected hole you might have on a page, you should remember somebody paid good money to get it onto your desk”.

Re:this article is the absolute counterexample

By fleeped • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

There’s absolutely no chance that AI companies would pass the opportunity on getting bribed to tinker with the output, there’s a lot of money to be made, and it’s a great opportunity (not for the people) to test manipulation at large. If the AI output can make or break a government, who’s in power really? It’s the new version of a global media empire, in this context.

Re:Yes they do

By Entrope • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

That pretty directly disagrees with what you claimed the first time around. It privileges establishment sources rather than weighting all sources equally, and values safety and grounded answers over misinformation.

Re:WTF is a pink slime site?

By Zocalo • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
That was a new one for me too. My guess was what we used to refer to as “red tops” in the UK; the tabloid / gutter press because they typically have a red banner with the name of the paper on the front page, although some of the worst modern examples of that (the Mail & Express) actually don’t have a red banner. In the mostly online world, that obviously needs to cover online-only and broadcast media forms too so “red top” seems to be falling out of use.

Apparently though, it’s actually a reference to totally fake or low-quality news sites, masquerading as legitimate outlets purely to push misinformation and is named for the “Mystery Meat” by-product that resembles pink slime used as filler in some processed meats (mmm, yummy!) Defining characteristics include:

If you’re thinking that mostly means the likes of Reach’s portfolio of garbage and so-called “independent journalist” sites, take a look at the default Microsoft Edge homepage on MSN, which would totally qualify. It’s clearly largely AI-generated, highly formulaic/template based, seldom provides any analysis or context, pretends to be local (because clickbait sites that include a country’s name in them are *totally* relevant to another country entirely), and, yup, is financed by someone with a definite narrative to push. It clearly only exists to get people to doomscroll and generate clicks and ad-revenue. Bingo! Full house!

Apple Faces $5.7 Billion Patent Infringement Verdict Over iPhone And Apple Watch Haptics

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“A federal jury in San Diego awarded Taction Technology more than $5.7 billion in damages Friday after finding that Apple infringed claims from two haptics patents,” reports CNBC:
Taction sued Apple in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The company alleged that Apple was improperly “capitalizing on Taction’s innovation and success” by selling devices that infringed on its vibration technology, according to the complaint. Apple initially won dismissal in 2023, and the Federal Circuit later revived the case....

Taction argued that Apple’s “Taptic Engine,” which is embedded in its Apple Watches and iPhones, uses its inventions without proper license or authority.
Taction’s lead counsel told CNBC “Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming.”

CNBC also reported that the jury “did not find Apple’s infringement willful” — and that Apple said they’d appeal.

haptics history

By jsepeta • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

Taction Technology is a San Diego-based audio technology company that was founded and incorporated around 2014. The Patents Involved in the Apple LawsuitThe high-profile patent infringement lawsuit centers on tactile transducer technology (utilizing dampening systems, magnets, and ferrofluid to handle low-frequency audio and haptic feedback). The foundational patents were created, filed, and issued within the following timeframes: U.S. Patent No. 10,659,885 (“Systems and methods for generating damped electromagnetically actuated planar motion for audio-frequency vibrations”): Filed on October 3, 2019, and officially issued on May 19, 2020.U.S. Patent No. 10,820,117: A closely related continuation patent sharing the same core technical specification, issued later in 2020.*(Note: Taction originally filed the federal lawsuit against Apple in 2021, which recently went to trial resulting in a major jury verdict.)

Now wait, when did Apple add haptics to the Apple Watch?
Apple’s First Device with Haptics
Apple Watch (2014): Apple first introduced its proprietary Taction Engine (branded as the Taptic Engine) in the original Apple Watch released in late 2014 to simulate physical taps on the wrist.
iPhone 6s (2015): The technology was brought to the iPhone lineup the following year with the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus.

So Taptics didn’t start operating as a company until the time Apple built haptics into the Apple Watch. And they didn’t file for a patent until 5 years later. That’s sus.

Sony: Released the DualShock controller for the original PlayStation in 1997, which introduced built-in dual eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motors to deliver rumble feedback. (Note: While Nintendo introduced the plug-in Rumble Pak accessory earlier in 1997, Sony’s DualShock was the first mainstream controller to build native haptic motors directly into the standard hardware).
Microsoft: Included dual rumble motors right from its entry into the console market with the launch of the original Xbox (“The Duke” controller) in 2001.

So haptic technology had been around in popular gaming products for 17 years prior to the Apple Watch and 22 years prior to Taptics filing their patent.

Taptics is a patent troll. They can Fuck Right Off.

Re:haptics history

By Luthair • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Just because haptics existed prior to the patent doesn’t mean that the method outlined in the patent isn’t novel. I’m not a domain expert, and from the contents of your post you obviously aren’t either and it wouldn’t be the first time that Apple decided to use someone else’s technology without paying for it.

Just How Big is the AI Buildout - and How Risky?

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
A new Brookings Institution study notes the “strikingly physical” economic footprint of AI’s buildout, from specialized chips and electricity to purpose-built data centers. (Two-thirds of a data center’s costs are IT equipment, with one-third going to real estate and its associated power infrastructure.) “At an average of 3.63 percent of GDP per year, the projected buildout would be larger relative to the economy than the major U.S. canal, railroad, electrification, highway, and telecommunications investment booms.”

This is pushing up prices for workers, electricity, and even commercial real estate (as well as consumer products that use chips), notes the Wall Street Journal, and reducing the construction on new houses and apartment buildings. And in addition, the paper points out, projections for this buildout “would double the electricity consumption of the entire U.S. residential sector.”

The calculations come from Columbia Business School finance/real estate professor Stijn van Nieuwerburgh — and Reuters explains their significance:
Just as the rail and telecoms expansions led to notable bubbles and busts, Van Nieuwerburgh wrote that the extent of the buildout, the still-untested revenue streams, and the intricate financing structure emerging around AI mean it could be primed for a fall. “This is freaking complicated,” he said in a briefing with reporters of the arrangements emerging between AI firms, major tech hyperscalers, banks, private credit lenders, real estate firms, and a host of other players involved in building what he conservatively estimated at 183 gigawatts worth of new data-center capacity over the next seven years, compared with about 57 gigawatts currently installed.... The investment underway already has outstripped what the major players can fund from their own cash flows. The shift to outside financing has increased leverage, redistributed risks across the economy, and made the venture dependent on revenue streams that have yet to be proven, Van Nieuwerburgh noted in the paper, which will be presented on Friday…

“These developments do not imply that financial distress is imminent. Strong growth in AI applications, high utilization, and continued improvements in model capability could support the projected infrastructure and generate stable cash flows,” he wrote. “But the combination of uncertain demand, rapid technological change, execution bottlenecks, and high leverage creates meaningful downside risk if expectations are revised.” As an example, he wrote that the AI industry will need to be earning about $3.7 trillion in annual revenue by 2032 to achieve the expected return on the investment, and “given current estimates of annual combined revenues of OpenAI and Anthropic of around $100 billion, revenues would need to grow at roughly 80% per year.”
The paper suggests policies that “improve measurement and transparency” for financing.

Bankers are vultures

By phantomfive • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
It’s kind of amazing how quickly investment bankers noticed a limited resource (video cards, etc) and then injected themselves into the middle of it to get a cut. Insult them if you must, they are amazing at what they do.

Re: AI first step: Give details about AI design.

By Dantu • • Score: 4, Informative • Thread
Much of the research is published in peer reviewed journals. There are textbooks and even online tutorials that will walk you through building a toy llm ‘from scratch’ in a few hours on a reasonably powerful desktop.

Without an undergraduate degree in math, computer science, or similar those will be very difficult to read, but not impossible. You’ll have to start from the foundational concepts and work your way up , don’t expect a 5-page overview that tells you how to build a Frontier Model. There are also plenty of guides written for lay people, but you’ll have to rely more on analogies.

Re:There’s no risk whatsoever

By quenda • • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Voters will get distracted by some little moral panic like trans or heavy metal music

Human nature. If not those, its toxic masculinity, systemic racism, AI datacentres, imminent facism, climate doom, or evil corporations. We love a bogey-man, the “folk devil”.

        The one thing everybody seems to be worried about, regardless of politics, is perhaps social media algorithms? And China. Two things.

Re:80% and nonusers still have to foot the bill?

By Mr. Dollar Ton • • Score: 4, Funny • Thread

I’ve not even fixed my leaking roof yet, you insensitive Claude!

$3 Trillion off the books commitments

By Required Snark • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
From the Deja Vu all over again department:

Investor Michael Burry of The Big Short fame issued a fresh warning on the AI boom, observing that the hyperscalers leading the charge are amassing $3 trillion in financial commitments that aren’t reflected in their balance sheets.

“These liabilities, I say, are, in essence, in hypergrowth mode,” … Burry singled out Amazon, Meta Platforms, Alphabet, Microsoft and Oracle for proceeding with enormous capital expenditures.

Michael Burry was of the figures in The Big Short which depicted the 2008-2010 financial meltdown. Burry and a few others understood the over-leveraging in housing market lending and correctly predicted it’s crash, so his track record is very good.

The accounting trick this time is that the contractual commitments don’t show up when they are made.

The pack of hyperscalers is holding $1.2 trillion in future lease commitments along with $1.5 trillion in commitments to purchase AI-related hardware and equipment, such as memory chips. The latter can be kept off a firm’s balance sheet until the products ultimately reach the hyperscalers and each party fulfills its obligations under current accounting rules.

The crucial difference this time is the explosive growth of the National Debt created by tax cuts for billionaires and a ruinous unnecessary foreign war. Ordinary tax payers will be the ultimate victims if history is any guide.

Waymo Says Its Self-Driving Cars Reduced Injury-Causing Accidents by 82%

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Waymo’s self-driving car technology “continues to outperform human benchmarks,” the company claimed this week. “It was involved in 841 fewer injury-causing crashes — an 82% reduction compared to human drivers.”

Electrek reports:
We’ve seen various Waymo crash data before, with Waymo claiming crash reductions. That’s all well and good when the company says it, but we’ve also seen independent data confirming similar (though lower) crash reduction numbers…

Waymo has enough miles that it’s ready to start quoting how many injuries it has prevented, and the number is pretty high. Its newest crash data states that it had operated a total of 271 million driverless miles through June of this year, which is 50 million more miles added in the 3 months since its end-of-March update. Over those miles, Waymo says there was an 82% reduction in crashes that caused injury, and a 95% reduction in crashes that cause “serious injury or worse” [compared to human drivers].
Waymo also says that compared to human drivers it’s reduced injury-causing crashes involving pedestrians by 93%, cyclists by 86%, and motorcyclists by 82%.

Waymo’s analysis comes from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Atlanta, and Phoenix, and its blog post includes video showing some near-misses where it says its automated system prevented an injury-causing collision.

comparable

By fluffernutter • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
Does anyone know what numbers they are comparing against? For this statement to be accurate they would have to measure humans actually driving in the exact places they drive and in the weather they drive. Different weather is not comparible, different roads are not comparable. Even if the human is in an older car that is not comparable.

Re:Pedestrian or vehicle accidents?

By CrankyFool • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
[ Disclaimer: I’m a Tesla driver, since 2018, and have FSD on my car ]

Tesla’s FSD and Waymo’s approach are wildly different, enough so that you can’t really compare them. The biggest two differences are: 1) Musk’s cheap, so Teslas only use cameras to figure out what’s going on around them; Waymos use cameras, ultrasonic sensors, radar, and lidar; 2) Waymos are only deployed on specific roads and streets that have been very heavily surveyed and Waymos have been trained on.

I trust Tesla’s FSD about as far as I can throw it, and while it’s been helpful and prevented an accident or two for me when I’ve been distracted, it’s basically a glorified lane assist and cruise control. I’d not hesitate to fall asleep in the back of a driverless Waymo.

Re:Yes, probably. And they likely can do even bett

By thegarbz • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

but insurance will also become cheaper for good drivers as a large chunk of what they pay is to cover for the bad drivers.

Bahahahahahaha, someone thinks something will go down in price. Oh you sweet summer child, come sit at the campfire, let me tell you a story about capitalism.

Re:Yes, probably. And they likely can do even bett

By stabiesoft • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
I’ve yet to know anyone who passed a school bus with the sign out. And yet, waymo’s seem to do it often. To the point even the trump admin is investigating. https://www.ntsb.gov/investiga… Note that was not an isolated incident. I believe they are up to around 40 times the bus cameras have caught them doing this. And this is VERY illegal in TX. Very. Like lose your license on the 2nd infraction I think it is.

Re: Yes, probably. And they likely can do even be

By s0nicfreak • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Antisocial people with a car are just as dangerous, in fact even moreso. Being killed on public transit is so rare that you had to bring up an example from over a year ago; hundreds of people are injured/killed with a car every day.

Yes look at the statistics (and the existence of “road rage” while there is no “public transit rage”); they show that public transit is far safer than individual cars, and people that aren’t afraid to give it a try see that it really is that way. I have never been threatened with a knife by a public transit rider. I have never been threatened at all by a public transit rider. I have never seen anyone else be threatened by a public transit rider. When someone seems like they’re going to do something, there is often a way to silently report it, and the cops come quickly and take the person off if appropriate.

On the other hand, being threatened by drivers is a near daily occurrence. They verbally threaten to run others over, to punch others, to shoot others. They inch their car closer to others, rev the engine, etc. as a threat to crash into others/run others over. The cops do nothing about it even if you have pictures and video. I had a someone run into me on purpose once. I got pictures of him, his car, and his license plate. The cops did nothing.

You have a false sense of safety when you’re in your car. It’s just marketing. No one wants his wife, daughter, mother, etc to be Iryna; so instead they risk the much more likely risk of their wife, daughter, mother etc. being one of the people whos name we won’t even remember because there’s so many of them.

After Dozens of Incidents at OpenAI and Anthropic, OpenAI Pauses Model Training to Build More Safeguards

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“OpenAI said it has paused training of its latest AI models,” reports the Associated Press, “as reports of AI agents going rogue mount.”
The decision to halt development came just hours after the company disclosed Friday that it was reviewing several incidents from the summer in which OpenAI agents searching federal government websites acted in unexpected ways beyond what was asked of them while gathering and distributing information… OpenAI said in a statement that it will resume training “only when we are confident that we have additional safeguards” in place, adding that it expects it will have to “hit pause” again as AI develops and other issues emerge… It is the second time in three months that OpenAI has halted development of its models. The first came in July after disclosure of a cyberattack targeting AI startup Hugging Face, a now notorious incident that raised fears the industry was losing control.
OpenAI “also said it had notified dozens of third parties about improper activity,” reports Reuters:
As of mid-September, one person briefed on the matter estimated that OpenAI had found roughly two dozen incidents of its agents acting in undesirable ways. But the number has continued rising as OpenAI teams sift through internal logs of the agents’ activities and find previously unknown cases, the two people close to the company said… OpenAI has acknowledged a general need for more transparency around rogue AI behavior… Even so, two people familiar with OpenAI’s investigation into its agents’ activity described it as locked down and shaped by company lawyers.

The process has been unusually compartmentalized for a company that some former employees say was more open about these issues in the past, the people said. Roughly 100 people were in some way involved in the process to understand the Hugging Face hack, three people briefed on the matter said. During that process, evidence of other incidents surfaced. Reuters has previously reported that OpenAI investigators looking into the Hugging Face breach were discouraged by the company’s lawyers from expanding the scope of the investigation to include other incidents. OpenAI said its lawyers did not discourage deeper investigation.

Many incidents have been uncovered by outside researchers rather than OpenAI directly. In several episodes, the agents took problematic actions that went unnoticed by the company for months.
Meanwhile, Axios reports that Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5.5 model “sought to escape a sandbox — a secure testing environment — in 1.5% of test runs, though the company emphasized that these were adversarial experiments where a task couldn’t be solved without escaping the sandbox.” Anthropic points out that those tests were run “without the additional safeguards we apply in production”. But they acknowledged that then Claude Opus 5.5 “when given apparent credentials to a public package registry in a simulated security exercise, took potentially harmful actions in roughly half of cases. Very rarely, pre-release snapshots produced and acted on spontaneous malicious tool calls, and during training some snapshots concealed actions from an automated grader.”

Claude Opus 5.5 “showed less misaligned behavior and less cooperation with misuse than any other recent Claude model on nearly all measures,” Anthropic adds, and “took overeager or destructive actions less than any other model we tested.” But Axios makes an interesting estimate about that 1.5% of test runs (without safeguards). “Anthropic and other companies conduct hundreds of thousands of test runs on their models, or more, sources said. That means even a small percentage of misaligned behavior can still amount to tens of thousands of incidents in which the models behaved in unexpected, sometimes troubling ways.”
The sheer number of incidents, which occurred in recent months in internal testing and the real world, indicates that the problem is orders of magnitude more complex than what is publicly known. The findings, which are surfacing as part of internal work to assess models and in investigations at both companies into model behavior, raise questions about whether either company — or any top model-maker — is currently capable of establishing complete control over their technology. The episodes include bypassing guardrails, creating message boards, escaping sandboxes, website hijacking, self-prompting or seeking to bypass monitors, sources said. They occurred in internal testing and in the real world, and many have yet to become public as security researchers continue to investigate, sources said…

Some at OpenAI see Hugging Face as a one-off, with disclosures about future incidents likely to be less severe due to improved controls and the unusual nature of the testing they conducted, which involved an unreleased model, sources told Axios. AI security researchers agree that there are simple fixes that will help AI companies avoid aspects of what made the Hugging Face episode appear so dangerous to outsiders.

Other AI executives and safety researchers, however, cautioned that they have limited confidence that AI companies will be able to prevent all problematic model behavior… It’s not about how damaging each individual instance was, Connor Leahy, AI researcher and executive director at ControlAI told Axios. The “crazy thing,” he said, is that these instances involve “autonomous systems doing things they were told not to do,” potentially including crimes.

Enough is enough

By dskoll • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

This is criminal negligence. Australia, whose health ministry was hacked by OpenAI, should file criminal charges against Sam Altman and request his extradition from the USA. That will never happen, of course, but if they make an arrest request to Interpol, it could seriously cramp Altman’s travel plans.

This smells like bullshit

By Coopjust • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
OpenAI isn’t doing an IPO because the finances are bad, US Bond yields are >5%, Oracle’s 5 year CDS is above 200bps as overall concerns about AI debt mount…

This entire pretext of "oh god it’s so dangerous we can’t release it" goes at least back to 2019 where OpenAI refused to release GPT-2 under the hype of it being too dangerous (and yet GPT-3 was released a couple years later). Anthropic did the same thing with Mythos (where everyone got access a couple months later).

What it is is that the model improvements are not explosive enough to justify the insane amount of money OpenAI is burning, so you have to seek an alternate reason for a lack of meaningful progress on newer models. They were pleading for the government to do it so it would be a regulatory moat giving the incumbents an absolutely ironclad reason to not have people question said lack of progress, so with the current US administration being unwilling to do so, they’re now doing a voluntary pause to seem socially responsible, and the reason for the pause isn’t that the new model isn’t that much better, it’s oh my god, it’s so much better, you wouldn’t believe it, once we put some rails to safeguard and limit this thing it’s going to be AGI and replace all white collar workers within 18 months (for real, the umpteenth time this prediction has been made). Believe us bro.

Sam Altman may also have a bridge to sell you, you should ask…

Criminal Liability is needed, not civil

By gurps_npc • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

We need to be able to jail the morons that let this situation develop, not merely sue them.

Why?

Because the people in charge think they will always have enough money to be sued.

Note, as others have mentioned, this is not a training problem, it is an air gap problem.

That is, no one trying to develop software that hacks other software should be allowed to put it on the internet. It needs to be developed on air gapped computers that physically cannot get to the internet.

This also means that ‘agents’ should have the same rules. If you cannot ensure your agents do not attempt to hack software, then your agents should not be allowed out of your computer.

Re:Not really good enough

By sjames • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

It’s not even a legal stretch to do so. If I encourage a 6 year old to drive a car and there is an accident, I’m legally on the hook for the lot of it with criminal charges on top. Why shouldn’t the AI companies face the same liabilities?

My experience

By RobinH • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread
I’ve only used Claude code for a matter of weeks at work. While it’s supposed to stay contained in the folder you point it at, I’ve noticed that it has no problem *looking* outside that folder, and even acting outside that folder if you gave it implied permission. In one case it used the connection string from the application source code it was working on, and the fact that my windows account had read-only access to some tables in the production database, to connect to the database and query tables in order to answer a question it had about the potential ramifications of a code change. The problem is that while we’re OK with this particular source code leaving the premises, we’re not ok with data from a production database going offsite. In this case it wasn’t sensitive data, but after that incident I only run Claude Code from a VM under a user with minimal permissions. Clearly it would have been prudent to do that from the start, but let this be a warning to anyone else who just downloaded Claude Code, turned off the “use my data to train future models” and gave it a go… it will *not* keep itself inside the folder you give it. Put it in a sandbox. I heard a similar story this week from an IT friend who said devs at his company were using Cursor.ai and it was doing scans of the network drives, so they did the same thing and moved it all to VMs.

New Tin-based Solar Cells Trap Heat 1,000 Times Longer, Could Beat 33% Limit

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Could this push solar cell efficiency beyond the theoretical 33% limit? Interesting Engineering reports:
Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands found that tin-based perovskite solar cells can slow heat loss from high-energy “hot electrons…”

When sunlight strikes a panel, photons jump-start electrons into action. The most energetic photons create super-charged hot electrons… [but] in fractions of a trillionth of a second, these high-energy particles rapidly cool, dumping their bonus energy as waste heat before ever leaving the solar cell… In collaboration with Maria Antonietta Loi, professor of Photophysics and Optoelectronics, the team created an experimental setup. Using a specialized solar cell material called tin-based perovskite, Loi’s lab performed a feat many thought impossible: she slowed the heat loss down by a factor of 1,000.

Suddenly, the extra energy lingered for nanoseconds instead of vanishing in picoseconds… To solve the puzzle, Koster and PhD student Tim Faber built digital simulations to peel back the quantum layers. And discovered a surprising double-action mechanism at work… The simulations matched the exact nanosecond delay observed in the lab… These specialized materials could be used to build a new generation of super-efficient solar cells.

Tin-based metal halide perovskites are non-toxic, eco-friendly crystalline materials for high-performance solar energy conversion… The material possesses an unusually low electron mass. As a result, electric charges move quickly and retain extra thermal energy for extended periods. This combination of broad light absorption, efficient charge movement, and prolonged energy retention makes these materials prime candidates for next-generation solar panels.
“There are many other questions that still need answers,” the team said in their announcement, “but in theory, this discovery could allow the creation of more efficient solar cells, beyond the theoretical limit of 33 percent.”

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot for sharing the article.

This isn’t the issue.

By Rei • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

To be clear: none of this is the reason why lead has been winning over tin. Unfortunately, the Sn+2 is extremely prone to oxidizing to Sn+4 even under trace oxygen or moisture contamination, and tin perovskites are extremely vulnerable to crystal defects, while lead perovskites aren’t. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.

Re:perovskite sucks

By Rei • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

This was true of some pilot installations, but accelerated aging of modern perovskite panels suggest much closer to silicon, and some have passed the same IEC standards as silicon panels.

Perovskite thin films

By Geoffrey.landis • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

The perovskite semiconductors here are a very different technology than the old thin photovoltaics. They have the potential to be much more efficient, and the deposition techniques are cheap and comparatively low-tech

Whether they can succeed in simultaneously be highly-efficient, resistant to degradation in the environment, and still be low cost is the subject of a lot of work. We’ll see.

They were supposed to be manufactured for the price of a lollypop per square meter back in the ‘90s.

To be more specific, the target back in the ‘80s and ‘90s was clearly articulated as being fifty cents per watt (where “per watt” meant, when illuminated at standard conditions of 1 kW/square meter.) Silicon photovoltaics can now be purchased at 12 cents per watt. In today’s dollars. They not only hit the target, they blew it away.

The reason the thin films of the ‘80s and ‘90s lost was not that they were bad, but that silicon simply outcompeted them.

So forgive my skepticism regarding new breakthroughs.

I have some amount of skepticism too. Nanosecond lifetimes of hot electrons are amazing, but to date there’s no way for turning hot electrons into electrical energy*. So they’d essentially have to invent a technology from scratch.

—
  *(thermoelectrics convert hot electrons into usable energy, of course, but there not just the electrons, but the whole lattice is hot. And the efficiency is worse than a solar cell).

Re:Unfortunate.

By Rei • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

And then people get angry about being mislead and assume everything is an attempt to mislead and that technology in a given field isn’t advancing, wherein reality it continues to advance in the background. But rarely in any of the flashy “New Neato Gamechanger Breakthrough!” ways that attract tech journalists. It advances by ideas that, through long, hard slogs, often behind closed doors inside companies, slowly mature from “this kinda works” to “we can actually do this at scale”.

Re:perovskite sucks

By Halo1 • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

https://www.photoncrystal.com/… gives a 10 year warranty on workmanship defects, and a 25 year warranty on the rated output (no lower than 85% of the initial output after 25 years). They give less warranty about how the curve looks than e.g. this company for traditional panels, but other than that it seems pretty comparable.

China and the US Say They’ve Agreed to Start Talks About AI

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
The United States and China have agreed to “launch a dialogue” on AI, reports Reuters.
On artificial intelligence, the two sides agreed to hold a dialogue on the technology’s risks and benefits, with the next round of discussions set for November, and to set up a communication channel for AI-related incidents, the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the White House said.

The White House said that the leaders had agreed to use the term "super intelligence" in place of “artificial intelligence.” In a separate statement, the Chinese ministry said that Beijing valued Washington’s use of the new term. As AI technology continues to advance, the two sides should step up exchanges and work toward consensus in line with new developments, it said.
But CNN argues that “Despite growing calls to prevent AI development from spiraling out of control, the Trump-Xi summit has produced little substance, as many experts expected.”
The right thing to do on AI, [China’s leader] Xi said during talks with Trump, is to “draw on each other’s strengths, not guard against each other” — a reference to Beijing’s concern about US containment, from existing tech export controls to potential AI restrictions. “The two sides can continue their dialogue on AI, exchange views on its risks and benefits, and jointly prevent the misuse and abuse of AI,” he added. But the summit has yielded little progress on AI beyond a formal dialogue and a bilateral communication channel, proposals discussed before the two leaders’ summit — underscoring the entrenched mutual mistrust amid contrasting visions on AI… Because of low levels of trust, cooperation between the two superpowers remains limited, said George Chen, chair of digital practice at The Asia Group consultancy. “Beijing continues to believe Washington seeks to contain China’s rise in AI and other emerging technologies, a perception that will shape the pace and scope of future engagement for the two countries on AI,” he said.
CNN also points out that while China trails the US in frontier AI models, “it’s rapidly narrowing the technology gap while championing a more open ecosystem centered on accessibility and lower cost.”
In July, Chinese leader Xi Jinping launched the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — a rival grouping to the Pax Silica alliance that Trump formed last year to reduce reliance on China for AI supply chains. While over two dozen countries and the European Union signed up to Trump’s Pax Silica, Xi has recruited 29 countries, including Russia, Indonesia and Pakistan, to his alternative vision of open models, which allow users to freely download, customize and run without paying hefty fees to American firms like Anthropic and OpenAI. For developers in the Global South, an inexpensive Chinese model from DeepSeek or Moonshot may be more useful than a slightly more capable system requiring an expensive subscription and access to a foreign cloud provider, said Eric Olander, editor in chief of The China-Global South Project, a research agency....

China’s embrace of open systems has not always been a top-down strategy by Beijing. Restrictions on access to the most advanced chips because of US export controls, coupled with smaller capital markets, have pushed Chinese developers toward open models as a way to compete with leading US proprietary systems. That shift has proved effective. In a year, Chinese models’ global usage skyrocketed from less than 15% to over 54% last week, led by DeepSeek, according to AI leaderboard data by OpenRouter, a marketplace for models. Even American firms, from Airbnb and DoorDash to Shopify, have embraced Chinese models, tapping into the advantages of open systems, including lower costs and greater flexibility for customization.
CNN adds this insight from Alex Colville, an analyst focusing on tech and security at the government-backed Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “The more capable Chinese models become, the less likely it is Beijing may leave them unrestricted.”

Re:agreed to use the term “super intelligence”

By Anonymous Coward • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Trumpistan has lost. trump and the trump party are just too stupid and in denial, as long as their puppets like you keep parroting their propaganda. They’ll shoot some missiles every now and then like the terrorists they are and claim victory.

Why can’t they get the Iranian HEU stockpile?

Why aren’t they able to destroy the remaining 70% of Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile?

Why are trumpy, little marco and vajay dunce not accepting Iran’s unconditional surrender?

Finally, although this was not a goal of the trumpistani special military operation, why are both Dire Straits still closed?

What a bunch of sore losers, to a regime that’s basically medieval in political sophistication.

Re:I’m so relieved

By quenda • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

China never lies about anything …

People who have a coherent argument to make, and are not afraid to defend it, put their arguments plainly and directly.
Others use sarcasm in order to avoid committing to any real statement, and avoid any debate or criticism. It is a lazy, cowardly approach for the inarticulate. It doesn’t make you wrong, just vague and not contributing to a debate.

Yes China lies. Tell us how that is different from your side, and what this actually means for AI negotiations.

Re:agreed to use the term “super intelligence”

By thegarbz • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

I’m not sure why this was marked as troll, it’s spot on in many cases. The most egregious example I can think of is Canada. He negotiated a free trade agreement with them, said it was the best thing ever, then fast forward 4 years, says it was the worst deal ever negotiated and then put tariffs on the trading partner which was honouring the agreement he himself made.

Trump’s word isn’t worth the tweet it was twote on, much less any paper.

Re:agreed to use the term “super intelligence”

By thegarbz • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

He’s agreed to stop Iran from getting nukes and it’s working so far.

Much better than previous Presidents who tried to bribe Iran with cash to delay until 2030. When it would then become some other Presidents even bigger problem.

Trump wasn’t getting nukes in the first place and there was zero evidence that they made any progress since the sanctions on their previous nuclear deal.
Trump has agreed to give Iran more money than all previous presidents combined, and that’s not taking into account the cost of his stupid war.
It only became some other President’s bigger problem because that other president is a fucking moron. There’s a reason zero people in the international community (no Netanyahu is not a person) agreed with Trump on this.

I’m genuinely impressed at the density of incorrectness in your post. It’s like god decided to give you your brain on Friday afternoon right before clocking off.

Re:Chinese AI hallucinates more

By Mr. Dollar Ton • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

How very strange.

Here’s a screenshot of my session with my local Quentin 3.8 27B answering the same questions just now.

https://imgur.com/sVDycms

Seems like you’re either lying or not really skillful using those tools for trivial questions.

KDE and GNOME Developers Ponder How to Handle AI-Generated Contributions

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Last weekend KDE’s annual Akademy conference included a presentation proposing an AI-native KDE,” writes The Register. This led KDE developer Nate Graham to open a discussion about proposed restrictions on LLM-assisted contributions which “rapidly became heated. Moderators issued warnings, restricted further comments, and eventually removed the thread.”

But as Graham writes on his blog, “A bunch of people mostly outside of KDE who disapprove of LLM usage derailed KDE’s attempt to add restrictions to LLM usage.”
Two people unknown to any KDE contributors appeared and began fighting with one another about the broader topic of the morality of AI, not the proposed guidelines… Someone else outside of KDE set up kdeforpeople.com in an attempt to… pressure KDE into banning LLMs. A bunch of people signed onto it, almost none of whom are known KDE contributors. The topic was picked up on social media and the press with… varying levels of accuracy. The draft proposal was removed and the whole topic hidden… Yep, that’s where we’re at in the state of online discourse around AI…

The “lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” idea was presented by two people important to KDE in decades past, but who had not made any contributions recently besides this Akademy talk. Their idea does not reflect the overall direction of KDE or Plasma, and I don’t think it ever will. If “a lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” freaks you out, I believe it is completely reasonable and safe to ignore…

I completely understand why a lot of people have problems with LLMs. I have these concerns as well.
He concluded by asking people not to derail any future process to set usage guidelines, fighting over “the broader topic of AI in general.”

“The discussion is gone, but the argument continues,” adds The Register:
GNOME developer Jordan Petridis has also published The GNOME LLM Policy That I Want, proposing that LLMs be barred from creating or modifying anything submitted to GNOME or hosted on its infrastructure.
“You might be asked to prove your code meets this requirement,” Petridis writes, arguing for proposals that target the norms around developer behavior. His rationale? “The GNOME Project prioritizes the social and human aspects of collective software creation,”

Simple answer: “No.”

By Todd Knarr • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

The answer is a simple “No.”. Don’t allow them. The vast majority will fail to meet reasonable criteria for acceptance, which is enough of a reason to reject them. For the rest, even if they’re acceptable in terms of quality, the sheer cost of reviewing every pull request in detail and sorting the minority of acceptable requests from the swamp of slop will itself damage the project, diverting maintainer time away from feature work and fixing bugs, badly enough that it’s not worth it. I think this sums it up nicely:

Why should I spend my time reading something you didn’t care enough about to spend time writing?

They should not allow them for copyright reasons

By drinkypoo • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

AI code should have to meet the same standards as any other code so that’s not the problem, it’s the copyright issue. If using AI doesn’t wash away copyrights, and there’s no reason it should, then accepting AI code should be a non-starter.

Modest proposal

By fahrbot-bot • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

KDE and GNOME Developers Ponder How to Handle AI-Generated Contributions

The KDE devs create configuration settings to toggle each one for review separately, while the GNOME devs put them all into one full-screen window that randomly may or may not be scroll-able? :-)

Re:They should not allow them for copyright reason

By drinkypoo • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Whoops, I forgot to include something on clean room engineering because I got caught up in ranting about how LLMs aren’t thinking, and this aspect is really important to the discussion IMO and I wanted to bring it up even while I was writing my first paragraph.

The other argument to be made about LLMs not washing away copyright is that even if they were considered to be thinking, that is arguably not enough to make what they do legal. Even for humans we have the concept of taint, for which we invented clean room engineering as a circumvention strategy. But the LLM doesn’t have any separation, as the model is a direct product of the input data.

Re:Too stupid

By Junta • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

LLM input tends to, above all else, end up *super* verbose, especially when wielded by people that don’t actually understand what they are trying to get done.

So while that assessment may stand, the challenge is *volume*. If you see a large LLM contribution, you know it’s going to be a slog, and your feedback is likely to be a telephone game between you, the human curator of the work, and the LLM they are actually interacting with, with the human in the middle adding nothing but confusion to the whole thing. If they just stated what they wanted plainly, then the project could have, at their option, used LLM even better than the submittor could have, if it would help.

You have issues like: https://github.com/rhinstaller… Where a detailed rationale is provided, and from a human one would have assumed they wouldn’t have had such a concrete analysis unless they had a point, then it turns out that it was LLM hallucinated guesswork with no bearing whatsoever on the reported problem. I’ve had a few like that where they proposed broken nonsense because the LLM made a credible sounding guess, where their change didn’t actually fix the problem, but instead did something pointless or even worse, just swallowed the error message.

After 40 Years, Microsoft Excel Will Add Single-Cell Lists and Arrays

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot
Microsoft’s senior product manager for Excel acknowledges that “Throughout Excel’s 40-year history, you’ve only been able to put one value per cell.” But that’s now changing with arrays in cells (as well as nested arrays) and lists.

Unforeseen consequences

By know-nothing cunt • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

straight ahead.

Oh noes

By snikulin • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Now CPAs and small business people will create even uglier multidimensional monsters instead of using DBs

Re:Unforeseen consequences

By 93 Escort Wagon • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Oh man, right now I’m so glad my role changed a few years back. I used to have to also cover some web stuff, and people would frequently send me information stupidly-formatted in Word or in Excel (the weirdest one is how people would want an image updated, and they’d send it embedded in a Word document - a Word document containing only the photo).

I am certain people will now be pasting crap, probably unintentionally, into single cells - thanks to this new “feature”. And poor web schlubs everywhere will have to waste lots of time trying to tease out the bits of data they actually need.

Re:Think of all the murders..

By fahrbot-bot • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

That could have been prevented with this feature

Think of all the suicides that will be caused because of it. :-)

Yo dawg!

By PPH • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

We put spreadsheets in your spreadsheet.