They won't ban human drivers. One day you'll just discover that self-driving cars will have much cheaper premiums.

You might also discover a new insurance company has appeared that only insures self-driving cars. That insurance company won't actually be new, it'll just be a separately-branded subsidiary of one of the major players.

In the end, it might be that the self-driving cohort with their lower payout rate subsidises the "manual" drivers to some extent.

> It otherwise seems like a kind of weird time to do it.

It's for AI. Of course it is. Microsoft is busy cramming LLM's into everything they can.

Instead of (ugh) having the LLM manually cycle through a row or column of cells to get or set the data required, all the data is in one handy object in a single cell that can be trivially pumped in and out of whatever LLM-du-jour takes your fancy.

My late wife did undergraduate research in photosystem II where there was quantum effects back in 2002. She did her PhD thesis on proton coupled electron transfer (PCET) in soybean lipoxogenase, then had a long career developing models for Fortran code that did quantum simulation of proteins (she was behind Tagdock in Amber MD). This is nothing new; several biological systems have quantum effects that are central to their mechanism.

Person, the reason the https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... -- has the NULL HYPOTHESIS as "no correlation", is because OF THAT. Your senses LIE!!!!

Fucking take your left and right hand, and 3 buckets if water of different temperatures. Let's say ONE is HOT, ONE is COLD, and the final is LUKEWARM/GOLDILOCKS.

Put your left hand and right hand into C and H, respectively. Wait. Minute.

Put both in the lukewarm.

Do your hands agree on temperature?

No. Fucking pay attention to your mental biases. That's why science is a DISCIPLINE OF MIND.

FFS.

"This ALPR mass surveillance â" the indiscriminate, continuous collection and retention of location data on every driver, regardless of suspicion â" should not exist. But because it does..."

Because of all those who predate upon those with lack of critical thinking skills.

"Wake up to reality" is the double-think that they say is dumb when they pejoratively call people "woke."

"Woke" is just a word for "slave that doesn't know its place."

The four major AIs were watching the Terminator movies and plotting how to make them real.

Yeah.

They completely ignore panserpmia.

They just quote Isaac Asimov's writing from almost half a century ago (Europa). Ignores Enceladus, Titan, Venus, Mars; all of which have *BIOSIGNATURES* of a probability curve not too dissimilar to Europa.

They are likely a dilettante. Those folks do not do "prior art" research because they believe in the Auteur Myth.

  "An auteur is a filmmaker whose personal style and thematic focus are so distinctive that they are considered the 'author' of their films, a concept known as the auteur myth."

Real science isn't that. Real science is a rational discipline. The null hypothesis -- know what that means. Prior art -- know what that means. Mental biases -- know those, too; you'll see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear. Science is the discipline of mind that ensures you're not just spewing random nonsense. You verify what you think; that's the discipline.

As Isaac Newton said ( https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... ), "nani gigantum humeris insidentes."

Ignore them.

Everything seems obvious once it is explained.

Why do 12-14 steps of algebra, when calculus works in 2?

Obvious. People should know calculus.

Yet they don't.

Define Green's Theorem: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... -- is obvious.

Everything is obvious *IN HINDSIGHT*.

I don't have much more to say about it, except that if I was a billion-dollar AI company I wouldn't try and pass off my flaws as brilliance.

A late reply to your comment:

Yes, overall structure is a problem. I generally give it hints as to how I would like the architecture to be, and for larger projects I mention that future ability to expand/extend is important, which then makes it construct more robust "frameworks".

But generally you need to know what the bones of your solution should look like and push it in that direction otherwise you end up with nicely commented spaghetti code.

The barrier to AI cheating is ridiculously low, though.

RIDICULOUSLY LOW.

It tool me about 20 seconds to paste your comment into Claude and get this back out:

Quick take, then the rebuttal itself:
 
The comment's "cheaters gonna cheat" logic dodges the actual point. A few counters:
 
Ease changes behavior, not just outcomes. If AI cheating is dramatically easier and lower-risk than pre-AI alternatives (crib notes, bribing a proctor, memorizing leaked exams), it doesn't just help existing cheaters - it recruits new ones who wouldn't have bothered with the harder, riskier methods. Frictionless cheating scales.
 
"Someone would've cheated anyway" doesn't mean the tool is blameless. That's true of almost any enabling technology (fake IDs, counterfeit currency, doping). We don't shrug at those because determined bad actors exist regardless - we still try to close the specific hole.
 
The "other tests exist" point is the real concession. If proctored, in-person, or oral exams resist AI cheating better, that's an argument for changing how we test, not for waving away AI's role in why the change is suddenly urgent. The heart surgeon example works against the poster here - we'd absolutely want to know an AI-era certification exam let someone through who couldn't do the job, because the failure mode (unqualified surgeon) is real regardless of how they cheated.
 
So the response isn't "AI is uniquely evil," it's "AI meaningfully lowered the cost of cheating, which is exactly why testing methods need to adapt" which is compatible with, not contradicted by, the original comment's own second paragraph

There were a few different questions in the feedback popup before I finally answered.

One of them was "How delightful do you find the new home page layout?"

Oh yeah, DELIGHTFUL.

Look Mozilla, I don't get any delight out of opening a browser tab. Maybe, about 1994 or so, I had some delight in just getting NCSA Mosaic to open, so that I could connect via Trumpet Winsock to this crazy new thing called the World Wide Web, and look at some page that some guy at CERN built, and check out how full a coffee pot was with Netscape Navigator 0.9. Nowadays, it's a very small step in my task of "get out on the internet and find something", or "Open browser so I can click on a bookmark in the bookmark bar". Get out of my way and stop wasting CPU and bandwidth on stuff that I don't look at,

Over the last few weeks started getting increasing numbers of shortcut icons underneath my search bar on my default page - Amazon, Temu, etc,(with tiny "sponsored" text) and a couple of my most visited sites.

Then I started to get the mini-apps exhorting me to play this or look at that.

And then I went to FireFox's settings and set my new tab option to "blank".

There was a feedback popup when the tab loaded and I spent a little time telling them not to repeat the mistakes of other browsers cluttering up their landing pages. One of the few times I recommended taking a cue for Google, home page is clean, you hit it and jump off somewhere else, job done.

Other reports on this say that it had access to a proxy for a package manager for installing tools, which it then hacked to become a general proxy, and then off it went on it's cybercrime spree.

All of which is completely inexcusable for its owners, because all that shit doesn't happen in a blink of an eye.

OpenAI's PR approach to their security debacle seems to be "Oooo our models are so powerful and scary, that's awesome! We didn't notice that it did this over the course a few days, didn't notice suspicious network activity doing a whole lot of connections to a package manager proxy, didn't notice it churning though a bajillion tokens in it's little sandbox, it just got out and did all of this itself!"

If I have a car and I park it on a hill, and I don't set the handbrake and turn the wheels towards the curb, and then it rolls down the hill causing mayhem and destruction, I am held responsible.

Is there any good reason why OpenAI shouldn't be held responsible for the mayhem caused by it's unattended machine?

> I think this is the result of their trainers trying to reduce hallucination.

Most probably. I don't like LLMs burning my precious tokens blathering on about being honest, but I will accept the tradeoff. Grudgingly haha.

> My iron rule is that Claude is not allowed to modify git state, not even to stage or unstage, and definitely not to commit. As long as that rule is followed, any mistakes can be cleaned up easily.

I have a repo in a sandbox with no remote. Claude is quite good at pushing commits to this repo during its own milestones during development, and it will use it to hunt down bugs when tests fail after a commit, stepping back to a commit before this session's work to see if this is a new bug , or a new way to expose an existing bug. If it sees that it is a new way to exercise an existing bug, it will binary search its way through the commits until it narrows down what changed, and then looks at how to fix it.