Peacepath

Oh yes we are young! And since no less than 40 years! ^^

You are right, I live in a region where eating is the aim of living (rather than a need to live). Yet when the meat is fresh enough restaurants usually don’t offer egg on top (or as an opt-in thing). I would not ask tartare to a non-specialist restaurant, mostly because my taste is wasted by the habit of quality… so I order the things the restaurant do well rather than my favorit dish. And I don’t do tartare myself…

So, the egg isn’t wrong, but I join you to the fact that if the tartare is good without egg, there is no point to add one (raw beef don’t miss protein). And if the egg is needed, I would prefere order something else…

here usually, the egg is optional… if ordered, it is usually mixed with the meat before eating.

Here, it would be mixed with the meat, a bit as when added on top of pastas.

I do not think a ban would be efficient. It would just force those who use AI to dissimulate it. I see it a bit as drug use, banning hasn’t solved the problem ; and the countries who handled it the best were those regulating the use.

So I think we should look for a good regulation. It is more complicated to set up, but it has a chance to work.

In my mind, it should allow some projects to identify as not using any AI, and request that each project define what is their use of AI. Ideally, we could know this without opening the project (maybe thanks to a badge).

Also, shaming the use of AI only has the same aim as banning it: forcing it to grow hiden and out of control.

It seems it was so common, at that time and this place to publicly claim religious things, that it is quite unlikely there is not at least one guy that matches less or more the one of the texts… texts which are written far after…

Anyway, the author isn’t the main character. The writers wrote texts, but the author who foundate the religion by making the bible as it is, is the one who collected texts, selected some, decided the order, and supervised the translation. Who is it?

I agree with you, and from my understanding (which could be inaccurate) the position of debian is to avoid a part of the use of that technology they judge both wrong and avoidable.

My own nasty use of AI is mostly to find back the name or syntaxe of functions I seldom use, and sometimes to explain me some theorical points. I admit it is wrong and only spares me only a few hours a week at most compared to stack overflow and online tutorials.

And my laziness would probably make me accept the existance of one model that would be a public property democraticaly controled ; which would consume less ressources than having many concurrents, and avoid the profit-oriented and corporate mindsets (I imagine them being the main source of threat)…

Also, a ban without control isn’t a ban. And making sure that not a single line of code was writen with the help of some AI seems more than complicated… is it just possible?

And how much working time would it take to audit all packages to make sure it is 100% wrote by some human?

It seems more realistic (and more honnest) to allow the part that would not be found by a reasonable audit of the code.

Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs’fault!

Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers…

Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.

Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…

It is a good way to tax the poors while pretending it is ethical and for public health… May the poors would be healthier if they have less money?

Prohibiting AI training would not work, in my opinion… but trying to prevent the privatization of AI production could be interesting, isn’t it?

Would it be possible (legally) to make a new version of GPL stating that code generated by AI trained on the GPL copy lefted code would have to respect the GPL as well?

I don’t really understand how dumb it is to set a wide default type casting. Yet I understand the point of requesting declared casting for some language (when the language is designed to be used by a team of professional dev).

But for languages that aim to be accessible to simple users for personal home pages, with html and css, is it really dumb? May it let mistakes pass without crash the remaining of the script, but it seems acceptable to me in some amateur pages.

If the script is written by a single dev, or a small team, they may decide to only use explicit casting and strict rules for their code…

I think the main mistake is to take javascript for an “easy little language one may use without learn it” just because it is made to be usable by non-professionals. But I could be wrong, and I would gladly understand how wrong I am…

Because it makes more sense than NaN which would be the other possible solution.

Number + Text = Text, and the Number is interpreted as the character that compose it in a human reading rather than based on the char matching ASCI or some other table.

The attempt to convert text into numbers to make the operation would give NaN most of the time (Not a Number)… Or should we get the asci value of “1” and get 1+“1” = 50?

I think 1+“1”=11 is a good default, as you see clearly what happend and how to correct it if it is not the result expected…

I think javscrpit caste the strings “0” and “false” to true, yes…

Simple javscript casting, if the string contains at least one char, it means yes ; else it means no.