The problem is people believe it is. People believe the advertisement industry narrative they are force to show the insane screens and have to make it difficult. Yet they are not, and a reject all must be as easy as accept all (and "legitimate reasons" do not exist, they are either allowed uses and you don't have to ask or they are not).
How is that useless? You adding the warning tells me everything I need to know.
Either you generated it with AI, in which case I can happily skip it, or you _don't know_ if AI was used, in which case you clearly don't care about what you produce, and I can skip it.
The only concern then is people who use AI and don't apply this warning, but given how easy it is to identify AI generated materials you just have to have a good '1-strike' rule and be judicious with the ban hammer.
Because you have to be able to prove it wasn't AI when the law is tested, and keeping records and proof you didn't use AI is going to be really difficult, if at all possible. For little people having fun, unless you poke the wrong bear, it won't matter. But for companies who are constantly the target of lawsuits, expect there to be a new field of unlabeled AI trolling comparable to patent trolling or similar.
We already see this with the California label, it get's applied to things that don't cause cancer because putting the label on is much cheaper than going through to the process to prove that some random thing doesn't cause cancer.
If the government showed up and claimed your comment was AI generated and you had to prove otherwise, how would you?
"One regulation was kinda bad, so we should never regulate anything again."
Good god, this is pathetic. Do you financially gain from AI or do you think it's hard to prove someone didn't use it? Like this is the bare minimum and you're throwing temper tantrums...
The onus will be on the AI companies pushing these wares to follow regulations. If it makes it harder for the end user to use these wares, well too bad so sad.
>"One regulation was kinda bad, so we should never regulate anything again."
Please don't misrepresent what someone says. That does not lead to constructive dialog.
I gave a question challenging a specific way to regulate a specific thing, to indicate it is challenging. This is not the same as dismissing all regulations.
Also, please avoid the personal mentions.
>The onus will be on the AI companies pushing these wares to follow regulations.
That wasn't the challenge. The raised issue isn't AI companies labeling things AI. The given example included them very much following the regulation.
Most of these studies get published based on elaborate constructions of essentially t-tests for differences in means between groups. Showing the opposite means showing no statistical difference, which is almost impossible to get published, for very human reasons.
My point was exactly not to do that (which is really an unsuccesfull replication), but instead to find the actual, live correlation between the same input rigourously documented and justified, and new "positive" conclusion.
As I said, harder from a research perspective, but if you can show, for instance, that sustainable companies are less profitable with a better study, you have basically contradicted the original one.
Non-tech people tend to think similarly about developers, breaking things that worked fine until yesterday / last week / last month, for no user-visible benefit.
TLDR: Cochrane thinks the Fed wants keep a lid on narrow banking because it believes it can cross-subsidizing lending to households and businesses from retail deposits.
"Production" can mean many different things to different people. It's very widely used as a backend strutured file format in Android and iOS/macOS (e.g. for appls like Notes, Photos). Is that "production"? It's not widely used and largely inappropriate for applications with many concurrent writes.
Sqlite docs has a good overview of appropriate and inappropriate uses: https://sqlite.org/whentouse.html
It's best to start with Section 2 "Situations Where A Client/Server RDBMS May Work Better"
Sorry for my negativity / meta comment on this thread. From what I can tell the stackexchange discussion in the submission already to provides all the relevant points to be discussed about this.
While the asymmetry of least squares will probably be a bit of a novelty/surprise to some, pretty much anything posted here is more or less a copy of one of the comments on stackexchange.
[Challenge: provide a genuinely novel on-topic take on the subject.]
But bringing it up as a topic, aside from being informative, allows for more varied conversation that is allowed on stack exchange, like exploring alternative modeling approaches. It may not have happened, but the possibility can only present itself given the opportunity
I'm believe /sbin was introduced/standardized in System V Release 4. It's present in SVR4 (1988) but not in SVR3 (1987). Another candidate is would be some old BSD (check 4.2 or 4.3 (1986) if anyone has a running system).
I'm guessing it was introduced to finally move out all the (mostly system) binaries from /etc, which in ancient Unix from Bell Labs in the 1970s really meant "etc", as in stuff that didn't fit elsewhere rather than system config files, so it contained binaries like init, mount, umount.
macOS has all of that (mostly inherited from NeXTSTEP which was significantly based on 4.3/4.4BSD). It's hidden by default in the GUI, visible in Terminal.
Nowadays most end users just use /usr/local or /opt/local or whatever is managed by Homebrew or Macports.
This is Unix V4 from 1973. The total number of installations world wide was around 20, all inside Bell Labs. There was no networking support at all, so security was mostly physical, i.e., office building security (though you could dial in with a modem). Multi-user support was a bunch of serial-line terminals. Pretty much everyone knew everyone else who was on the system.
They were already mailing distribution tapes -- the software being run here was extracted off one of them (which had literally been lost in a store room for decades).
This is very predictably what's going to happen, and it will be just as useless as Prop 65 or the EU cookie laws or any other mandatory disclaimers.
reply