He's lying through his teeth. Revenue management has used ML for a loooong time to set things like price of different fare buckets, number of seats released to different fare buckets, exactly when seats are released to specific fare buckets, how many seats to hold back, how many instrument-supported upgrades to allow (e.g., upgrade certificates), how many complementary upgrades to allow, etc., forget things like schedule and route planning, and so forth. All three of the big US airlines are already using dynamic pricing on reward tickets such that you get a different price if you're logged in to their web site versus doing it anonymously.

So, again, lying through his teeth.

Succeeds, or causes a different morbidity to the patient, or worse.

I mean, you can inject tuberculin toxin into a tumor too, or radioactive thallium, or any of the vast suite of toxic concoctions, but it might not work out so well for the rest of the patient. Especially if you call yourself an inventor, instead of a medical scientist, with the level of training and knowledge expected for each.

I don't know why anyone would allow notifications on their phone (or their computer).

My time is not available to be interrupted for marketing outreach or other drivel. If it were, there would be a substantial payment required, because of the interference. When I want to know if there is a message to be read, I'll have a look at an appropriate time of my choosing.

Anyone who allows themselves to be bombarded by New! On Sale! Hi! Remember Us! OMG! messages in any medium does not value their time.

The peer-review process is so unpredictable and irregular that it effectively decouples the time-of-year for the discovery from the time-of-year for the publication of said discovery.

So, the answer to your question is, "no," on that grounds.

But, also, if there *were* any push for results, it would be aligned with the end-of-budgetary-year for a given grant, which is three times per year, and doesn't necessarily align with the Federal fiscal cycle.

So, again, the answer is, "no."

How about just working on making KDE smaller and faster, instead?

Pretty please?

With the last Plasma update, the time to intialize my desktop went from acceptable-but-could-be-better, to (not kidding) 60+ seconds. No changes on my side.

(And to the folks over at Mozilla, you've completely dropped the ball for rapidly getting Firefox to a usable state.)

Even better: when launch is initiated, disarm weapons, disable remote command, and land gently at intended target, so as to provide materiel to the Ukranians.

Right, clandestine sabotage would have been far better: explode N seconds after launch, or explode N seconds after its neighbor launches, or just brick itself.

That would be the difference between a group looking for fame, and a group looking for results.

I'm inclined to think the hackers are using the word "destroyed" in the contemporary, overblown 1337 sense, and that no actual damage was caused. But I hope the retrieved records prove useful in future counter-ops.

It's one thing to delete a bunch of technical information that, if the organization is half-competent has an off-site backup. It's another thing entirely to get into the actual machines and put them in a state outside the normal envelope of operation to cause physical damage, such as with Stuxnet.

This event sounds more like the former, and less like the latter. Unless, of course, triggering the fire alarms engaged sprinkler systems and flooded the place. That might have caused some physical damage.

The biggest win here might actually just be exfiltration of that technical data to assist hacking the drones themselves in the future.

... remember to read the headlines of currently posted stories before starting work. It doesn't take long and forgetting to do it does not help repair the tarnished reputation of the Slashdot editorial crew.

What, in your argument, is the difference between LLM copy-edited text, and for-hire human copy-edited text. The editorial services I have seen *sometimes* try to find editors that are kinda-sorta near the correct field of expertise, but there's no guarantee you'll get someone who even has a passing level of familiarity with your field, and for some services, all they have is a degree in English.

So, again, what's the difference between linguistic polishing by machine and linguistic polishing by semi-qualified human?

Following up on that idea, there are various copy-editing services that many non-native English speakers use, and are encouraged to use, to help improve their writing. The main difference from the perspective of forensic detection with AI-copy-edited text is that there are a very small number of such styles compared to the likely thousands of copy-editors' individual styles, making automated copy-editing easier to detect. I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you trained an LLM on the output of a single human copy-editor, you'd be able to identify all papers that used their services.

We use AI to help with paper writing in my lab, mostly because there are only two native English speakers, and it relieves me, the lab head (and one of the two native speakers), of having to do extensive copy-editing in order to make stilted English more readable. I still read every word that gets published from the lab, but using AI for copy-editing is no different from using a human-based writing service to fix poor language. It's just cheaper and orders of magnitude faster.

So, for us, the response would be a big, "so what?" to this report.

But, if people are starting to use AI to write entire papers, that's a different story. My experience is that current models hallucinate ideas and, especially, references, at far, far to high a rate to be seriously useful as anything other than a tool that requires full, manual verification. I half-jokingly say that if a paper is hallucinated, that means the AI was unable to find the right citation, and it represents a gap in the field's knowledge that we could address. The amazing thing about the hallucinations is how convincingly real they sound: the right authors, the right titles, the right journals. These are publications that *should* exist, but don't, at least in my experience.

As a most recent example, when writing a grant application, I tried to find citations using an LLM for an idea that is widely-held in the field. Everyone knows it to be true. It's obvious that it should be true. And, yet, there have been no publications as of yet that have actually discussed the idea, so the LLM dutifully hallucinated a citation with exactly the author list you would expect to have studied the question, a title that hits the nail on the head, and a journal exactly where you might expect the paper to appear. I've told my staff that we need to get that paper written and submitted, immediately, to fill that obvious gap, before someone else does. It will likely be cited widely.

I agree entirely. I teach an intro to programming course at one of the well-known universities. It is a lab course with 2 hours of teaching contact time per week, 2 hours of reading time per week, and 8 hours of expected programming time per week. The students learn by doing.

Aw, c'mon. Basic is a horrible, horrible language that teaches poor habits and has almost no translation to serious programming.

If you want to have kids learn something easy that at least teaches good organization and thought processes, then teach them Scheme.

Microbiology, neuroscience, solid physics, particle physics, robotics, ...

Canada, England, France, Germany, Switzerland, primarily. Portugal has gone on a hiring spree, as has Poland and Australia. I haven't seen any postings from Spain or Italy, but maybe that's my field.

I guess you don't understand how IP works. When a researcher works at an institution, the IP they generate is owned by that institution. The society where that institution is located typically is the big winner, as a result. Have you ever looked, for example, how much the US government gets in royalties from PCR?

The issue is that it isn't just DEI funding that's being cancelled. DEI is just the focus of the most bitter ire. There is a broad anti-science, anti-knowledge tone to the current administration, and I have many colleagues who have already left the US because of it. The number of available post-docs far outstrips the current number of open positions, and that talent is quickly leaving the US shores for greener pastures.