Well the size of IJ is itself a statement: 1. there's an awful lot to unpack once you start exploring the intersection of capitalism, addiction, and entertainment; 2. can you even _manage_ to go through it all without switching to mindless consumption every 5 minutes?

If the backend function was so poorly coded to allow such a gargantuan security hole, then it is an even worse problem. Basically Meta is throwing its own engineers under the bus so that its AI chatbot can save face. Scary stuff.

Unless the backend was _also_ vibe-coded, in which case it is still an AI problem.

You joke but this is almost literally what Chain-of-Thought does, at least in the early days. They basically just added "Wait," to the model's output and fed it back to the model iirc

This can't be a trillion dollar industry...

It's the ELIZA effect.

"Really?"

Well people _used_ to pay for it, in fact. Except it was 3 EUR/year rather than 3 EUR/month...

To be honest, Zork at times makes precious little sense: you are supposed to die over and over before you figure stuff out. For instance, you have to grab the endless-light-source treasure very early on, or you mathematically cannot win. And the game does not spell anything out for you, you just have to "get it" by watching closely at how/why you die.

This is a tall order for an LLM: it needs a lot of context but most of the context will be just noise.

I think the order in which the different elements of the book are introduced is crucial, as it leads to a lot of "aha!" moments.

> What put me off it is it just kind of reads like a rambling stoner conversation.

Yeah well, that book may not be your cup of tea then. The book _is_ rambling, plus a lot of the characters _are_ actual stoners/addicts/recovering addicts. But keep in mind that most of the book is in the third person, not in the first (as the first few pages would make you assume).

If things get as much as 10% as chaotic as you predict, there will be massive turmoil and the "Destroy all Clankers" party will actually be the one in charge.

Yeah, except we'll be a colony of China and those T800s will be on every street corner cause we didn't want to build datacenters and couldn't find a place to do yucky unaesthetically pleasing stuff like refining rare earth minerals and other primary industries anywhere that wasn't China.

Those industries have been reshoring for more than 5 years.

This has really little to do with embrace and extend. They are not taking over an open standard or anything like that.

If anything, it's forced dogfooding, i.e., forcing their own workforce to beta-test their product.

As I mentioned in another thread:

To be a coauthor on a preprint that you have not submitted, you have to actively "claim" it (using a password given to the author who submitted). It's on you to double-check before claiming.

I surely hope that only "confirmed" coauthors will get the ban, it's only logical.

To be a coauthor on a preprint that you have not submitted, you have to actively "claim" it (using a password given to the author who submitted). It's on you to double-check before claiming.

Is that your definition or theirs?

I can't see that in the code of conduct.

I don't think they mention it in the CoC, but anyone can upload an ArXiv preprint listing literally anybody else as a coauthor, so it is only logical that only "confirmed" coauthors should be affected.