And publish them as your own. It's only fair.

Oh JFC.....

What's next...Trans-Bots and DEI for underserved Bot minorities?!!? H1-Bot....?

It sounds interesting from a hardware perspective ....

....but "Windows"? Ick...no thanks.

You could have made a graphical powerhouse but nooooo you made a useless fucking waste of AI compute.

Given I almost NEVER see a Surface device in the wild, I'm guessing this is just another shoddy attempt at trying to lock people into AI-only shit.

Just split the fucking difference. Shift the clock a half hour and everyone's equally miserable about the whole thing.

So...there's really a shed that people build to store bicycles?

Again, is this a European thing? I've never heard of a shed dedicated to storing bikes....I can see this is brewing used as an analogy for something else, but the shed/bike concept itself is foreign to me.

Most people rarely ever change a time zone....a good number never leave the one they are born into....

Like many stories...the answer is:

"Well...it seemed like a good idea at the time...."

What the fuck is a bike shed?

Never heard of one or seen one before...is this a European thing?

What is left to change besides oven and microwave times?

One...the most IMPORTANT one....my internal clock....

That really takes close to a week to get fixed every time.....it throws all of us humans off to some degree.

Oh...and my dog....I have to adjust her schedule twice a year too....

It probably makes more sense for ST....but as far as I'm concerned....

JUST PICK ONE AND STICK WITH IT....

I want to quit the damned changing in my lifetime.

"Those of us who worry about our safety are less concerned."

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

This is absolutely correct, and it's extremely important to understand that this behavior is baked into the model. It's not even so much that it's "baked into" the model as it IS the model.

Ever since the earliest days of LLMs and generative AI, we have always, always seen what people call "hallucinations." But the only thing that qualifies such output as a hallucination is that we, the human observer, has judged it as such. By construction, the model DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. If it knew or "understood," it wouldn't have produced the spurious output in the first place.

So every now and then, we see some amusing audio/video clip of some human managing to fool or "break" an AI agent, and it makes the rounds of social media for people to point at and laugh and say "tee hee, how funny!" And then these same people, without thinking about what these hallucinations mean and what they imply about the intrinsic nature of the technology, immediately turn around and ask Claude or ChatGPT what they should make for dinner, or who to vote for, or who to hire and fire; or worse, give them access to their personal data and critical systems. That is a level of uncritical thinking and cognitive dissonance that ought to be profoundly distressing.

From a functional perspective, there is quite literally zero distinction between an AI generated pretty woman breaking and suddenly speaking in Cantonese during an English-language interview, and an AI agent that violates constraints imposed upon it and causes damage. They are both "hallucinations" in the sense that they are unintended behaviors/outputs, and as we have already established, the only meaningful arbiter of "intention" is our own human judgment. AI proponents try very hard to make excuses and minimize the severity of the problem. But it is intrinsic to all models.

Whether through laziness or ignorance, when humans cede their authority to interrogate and decide the truth for themselves and let machines do their thinking for them, who or what ultimately becomes the authority for that truth, and who is or is not accountable for the consequences? Who has a vested interest in controlling the source of truth and knowledge, and what are their motives?

People have been driven to delusion and suicide because of interactions with LLMs, and although you might be able to argue that they would have killed themselves regardless and were in need of treatment, no one can possibly know that, because that's not what actually took place.

But I think the more serious question is the framing of the premise: why is it that the point at which we ought to hold people accountable is if someone is killed? Who decided that the tipping point is when these AI agents start killing people, and why? Not only do most legal systems seek to prevent and punish abusive, antisocial, and outright criminal activity, a just society has a moral and ethical responsibility to apply rules and norms fairly. While we can see that the fair application of the law largely remains an idealistic fantasy and that those with wealth and status often escape accountability, the fact remains that adding AI to that privileged status certainly is not doing anything to help reduce that inequity.

So again I ask: why should agentic AI and their operators be permitted to do things that we would not allow under other circumstances? Just because some people find these tools useful does not excuse the requirement that they be safe and respectful.

Perhaps the EU needs to import more H1-B type talent to develop this new alternative.

We've seen how well it has worked out for us here in the US...[rolls eyes].