> you're paying for ads that are shown to confused users

Knowing some scammy advertisers, I think that many are happy to pay to show their ads only to confused users

The ship has sailed as soon as hiring managers stopped reading cv's directly and we got recruiters as a profession.

> The AirKamuy 150 is a cheap pre-fab cardboard drone meant to die on the battlefield

Oh, that makes more sense. I probably watched too many episodes of Futurama for my mind to immediately imagine drones used by people to commit suicide.

I had a similar reaction to the headline. The idea that munitions 'suicide' doesn't seem novel enough to have it in the headline. We don't say suicide icbms, or suicide cruise missiles etc.

> What you should have read correctly was the Facebook terms of service.

I'm reminded of Bo Burnham's wonderful "That Funny Feeling" from 2021's "Inside", where one of the absurd examples he offers in the lyrics is:

  There it is again, that funny feeling
  That funny feeling
  Reading Pornhub's terms of service ...

> "too magical"

Just putting the "magic/more magic" story here as a reference to the uninitiated - https://users.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/magic.html

>are resistant to bias-tests

What do you mean? What resistance have you encountered?

How do you say if an LLM is biased? I don't think there is any way to explain (in a way comprehend-able by humans) how the various weights shake out.

So you test it like a black box, but IMO that suffers from the same pollution any of the other tests (coding ability, math ability, w/e) that currently suffer from, except it's even harder to evaluate objectively.

I'm reminded of Zed Shaw's argument about how python3 should not be considered Turing-complete if it can't run python2 code. It was a fun rhetorical exaggeration that I felt helped clarify that it isn't unable to run python2 code, but rather that the people in charge decided that it shouldn't.

Exactly!

Our argument shouldn't be about the device's capabilities, but about its ownership. And increasingly, as this enshittification progresses, the person buying the device is becoming less and less its owner.

I don't think refusal is the right approach. I would much prefer that it respond with something like:

> There is not enough information to make an accurate estimate, but if you'd like, I can take a stab at it. If so, how much effort to put into it?

> Yes, go ahead and spend up to 5mins and $1 to analyze it.

> Done, I've had 100 subagents analyze the image and have arrived at a 95% confidence interval of the portion containing ...

I know this is just an example but my eyes kind of bugged out thinking about paying $1 every time I want to estimate the calories in my sandwich.

Even more news at randint(1, 12)