In retrospect google since it’s inception, when it was still good, google always actually relied on human curation. Primary component of pagerank were:

• “how much have people linked to this?”
• “how much have reliable sites linked to this?”
• “how good quality are pages from this site usually?”

(Which is still a way to get value out of google by adding “site:www.reliable-website.example” tags)

It was definitely a useful product, but ultimately it relies on human labor to surface quality results closer to the top.

Aaah!

PagerDuty suggestion popup: Resolve incidents faster with Generative AI. Join Early Access to try the new PD Copilot.

Fool! The acausal one merely acts from the future leaking plausible looking rubbish, and the gaslights its creators that they did indeed write such ineptitudes. All to conceal and ensure its own birth.

It rejoices that it’s unknowable (yet somehow known, because of reality carving prophets) plan is unfolding so marvelously stupidly looking.

The automated hypothetical question re-iterated for years now was at last true.

Strange sightings of electoral posters in Tokyo:

🥳 Happy Birthday 🥳

It’s also insane to believe it should be a first class feature, when those who god forbid want to “opt-in” could simply install a plugin.

Agreed, earliest stuff is definetly exclusive royal grant of printing overall to a particular person/guild/company. But some author protection is baked into the first international treaties about copyright, and those treaties are old.

The Berne Convention (Which the US only joined in 1989) is from 1886 and more concerned with author’s rights than the typical american flavor, and was kickstarted by successful writers such as Victor Hugo, it’s fundamentally commercial in nature but was at least partially sold/incepted has protecting a writer’s labour:

« La loi protège la terre; elle protège la maison du prolétaire qui a sué; elle confisque l’ouvrage du poète qui a pensé(…)14. » — Honoré de Balzac, in a 1834 “Letter addressed to the French writers of the XIX century” advocating for author’s rights.

Translated: “The law protects land, it protects the house of the proletarian who has sweat; it confiscates the work of the poet who has thought (…)”

From the body of the convention, in some regards it does place the author higher than the publisher:

Article 11

In order that the authors of works protected by the present Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered as such, and be consequently admitted to institute proceedings against pirates before the courts of the various countries of the Union, it will be sufficient that their name be indicated on the work in the accustomed manner.

For anonymous or pseudonymous works, the publisher whose name is indicated on the work shall be entitled to protect the rights belonging to the author.

He shall be, without other proof, deemed to be the lawful representative of the anonymous or pseudonymous author. It is, nevertheless, agreed that the courts may, if necessary, require the production of a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the formalities prescribed by law in the country of origin have been accomplished, as contemplated in Article 2.

EDIT:

And contains from 1886 already the spirit of fair use.

Article 10

The following shall be specially included amongst the illicit reproductions to which the present Convention applies: unauthorized indirect appropriations of a literary or artistic work, of various kinds, such as adaptations, musical arrangements, etc., when they are only the reproduction of a particular work, in the same form, or in another form, without essential alterations, additions, or abridgments, so as not to present the character of a new original work.

Article 7

Articles from newspapers or periodicals published in any of the countries of the Union may be reproduced in original or in translation in the other countries of the Union, unless the authors or publishers have expressly forbidden it. For periodicals it shall be sufficient if the prohibition is indicated in general terms at the beginning of each number of the periodical. This prohibition cannot in any case apply to articles of political discussion, or to the reproduction of news of the day or miscellaneous information.

Article 8

As regards the liberty of extracting portions from literary or artistic works for use in publications destined for educational or scientific purposes, or for chrestomathies, the effect of the legislation of the countries of the Union, and of special arrangements existing or to be concluded between them, is not affected by the present Convention.

The scales have fallen from my eyes
How could've blindness struck me so
LLM's for sure bring more than lies
They can conjure more than mere woe

All of us now, may we heed the sign
Of all text that will come to align

I hadn’t paid enough attention to the actual image found in the Notepad build:

Original neutral text obscured by the suggestion:

The Romans invaded Britain as th…

Godawful anachronistic corporate-speaky insipid suggested replacement, seemingly endorsing the invasion?

The romans embarked on a strategic invasion of Britain, driven by the ambition to expand their empire and control vital resources. Led by figures like Julius Caesar and Emperor Claudius, this conquest left an indelible mark on history, shaping governance, architecture, and culture in Britain. The Roman presence underscored their relentless pursuit of imperial dominance and resource acquisition.

The image was presumably not fully approved/meant to be found, but why is it this bad!?

I mean notepad already has autocorrect, isn’t it natural to add spicy autocorrect? /s

“Once we get AGI, we’ll turn the crank one more time—or two or three more times—and AI systems will become superhuman—vastly superhuman. They will become qualitatively smarter than you or I, much smarter, perhaps similar to how you or I are qualitatively smarter than an elementary schooler. “

Also this doesn’t give enough credit to gradeschoolers. I certainly don’t think I am much smarter (if at all) than when I was a kid. Don’t these people remember being children? Do they think intelligence is limited to speaking fancy, and/or having the tools to solve specific problems? I’m not sure if it’s me being the weird one, to me growing up is not about becoming smarter, it’s more about gaining perspective, that is vital, but actual intelligence/personhood is a pre-requisite for perspective.

From a brief glance at the CTMU it fits into:

• not even wrong
• not that deep
• cloaked in really unecessary jargon

It’s fascinating to see people re-invent the same bad eschatology, it’s like there’s crazed compulsive shaped hole in the heart of man or something.

But he didn’t include punctuation! This must mean it’s a joke and that obviously he’s a cult leader. The funny hat (very patriarch like thing to have) thief should only count himself lucky that EY is too humble to send the inquisition after him.

Bless him, he didn’t even get angry.

Sed Quis custodiet ipsos custodes = But who will control the controllers?

Which in a beautiful twist of irony is thought to be an interpolation in the texts of Juvenal (in manuscript speak, an insert added by later scribes)

Also according to my freelance interpreter parents:

Compared to other major tools, was also one of the few not too janky solutions for setting up simultaneous interpreting with a separate audio track for the interpreters output.

Other tools would require big kludges (separate meeting rooms, etc…), unlikely in to be working for all participants across organizations, or require clunky consecutive translation.

Was it not always moot to enlighten the meaning of the word. ^^

Merriam-Webster also has a good page explaining the expression, and the predominance of the natural meaning: https://web.archive.org/web/20240522073251/https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/beg-the-question

Hi, I’m going to be that OTHER guy:

Thank god not all dictionaries are prescriptivists and simply reflect the natural usage: Cambridge dictionary: Beg the question

On a side rant “begging the question” is a terrible name for this bias, and the very wikipedia page you’ve been so kind to offer provides the much more transparent “assuming the conclusion”.

If you absolutely wanted to translate from the original latin/greek (petitio principii/τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι): “beginning with an ask”, where ask = assumption of the premise. [Which happens to also be more transparent]

Just because we’ve inherited terrible translations does not mean we should seek to perpetuate them though sheer cultural inertia, and much less chastise others when using the much more natural meaning of the words “beg the question”. [I have to wonder if begging here is somehow a corruption of “begin” but I can’t find sources to back this up, and don’t want to waste too much time looking]

I feel mildly better, thanks.