We only had one ocean when we bullied Mexico into giving up territory.

We took over multiple islands both east and west of the continental US, which are now territoties and the state of Hawaii.

So no, oceans didn’t stop us when we rrached both coasts.

Calm down Satan.

Yes, treating AI answers with the same skepticism as web search results is a decent way to make it useful. Unfortunately the popular AI systems seem to be using multiple times as much energy to give answers that aren’t even as reliable as google used to be.

Back in the day google was using the same ‘was this information useful’ to return results before the SEO craze took off.

And yes, if the stains look like rust and there is a gap then there was a ferrous rock in the mix that rusted away. I have a spot on my sidewalk and a stone slab thing, and found out what caused it from someone who works with those materials!

This is absolutely in line with who buys into AI hype and why it is infuriating to try to convince them that they are reading way too much into how it seems to know things when all it is doing it returning results are statistically likely to be found as helpful to the audience it is designed for.

I have said that LLMs and other AI are designed to return what people want to see/hear. It doesn’t know anything and will never be useful as a knowledge base or an independently functioning diagnostic tool.

It certainly has uses, but it certainly isn’t going to solve all the things that are promoted by the AI hype train.

Random alphanumeric.

Should have tested for #^%_@()

They can make killing multiple people in specific locations more difficult, but they do nothing to keep someone from being able to fire a single bullet for an immoral reaspn, hence the difference between lethality and identification and morality.

The Vegas shooting would not have been less immoral if a single person or nobody died. There is a benefit to reduced lethality, especially against crowds. But again, reduced lethality doesn’t reduce the chance of being used immorally.

Those changes reduce lethality or improve identification. They have nothing to do with morality and do NOT reduce the chance of immoral use.

AI-enabled is the new “smart” bullshit. I wonder what the next buzzword will be.

More time to save up as well!

Drainstorming!

I used to google onions, because it was the style at the time

It explains what it does, it does not confirm that it is what was intended.

The user is always right about what they are willing to spend money on. That doesn’t mean they know what they want, although a lot of people don’t want to change.

That doesn’t mean all change is good, and it isn’t like any UI will ever meet everyone’s preferences. For example, I hate adaptive design interfaces that are significantly different in confusing ways on different resolutions. Like I understand switching a static menu to an expandable menu, but not moving the relative location of certain buttons from the bottom of the screen to the top or vise versa. But that might make sense for some use case that isn’t how I interact with it.

Huh, my first thought was that they went to the farm upstate where everyone’s pets end up.

Note they left the “…and improved” off the (New) title.

Like the startups that ‘disrupt’ the established system by ignoring laws and breaking the parts that worked and selling it like an improvement.

‘Ride sharing’ (unregulated cabs) was only cheaper because of investor funding allowing them to undercut on pricing, abusing the concept of contract workers, and the companies ignoring laws. That isn’t ‘disruptive’ by being innovative, that is cheating the system.

Like all sayings, there is context for moving fast and breaking things.

The saying means that when creating something new for profit, don’t worry too much about trying to figure out all the details beforehand and figure it out as you go. This will inevitably cause things to break, but being able to quickly fix that when it happens is the same skills needed to create new features as you go.

The saying does not work with large and complex established systems where breaking things wreak havoc.

Then some hackers get in and reprogram the AI CEOs to value long term profit and employee training and productivity. The company grows and is massively profitable until some venture capitalists swoop in and kill the company to feed from the carcass.

Tech CEOs or AI?

Just kidding, I know it is both.