Yea, I’m sure they’re doing this because their party is racist and hates immigrants, but it’s not even an open secret that the H1B program has been abused, it’s just a well known fact. It’s unfortunate that they are the ones doing this, but I’m glad someone in government is talking about it.

All it did was steal human work and rush publication

Ok, but literally all it does is steal human work and provide an output.

I wonder how the mathematician expected it to go. Was he expecting to be directly provided the AI output so he could publish it? Was he going to care if the AI used a novel approach he hadn’t employed and was unable to identify where it got it from? We have seen since the beginning that AI has an attribution problem, so it seems like his actual concern was that HE wasn’t credited.

I’m not an AI supporter, but this whole “it did just a small part” complaint is weird to me. I believe I read that most were solved in 3 hours of compute. I’m sure the mathematician wasn’t just 3 hours from solving the problem. It did it faster than humans did. Isn’t that the point? Does it matter how little the step was if it hadn’t been taken yet? It could’ve taken mathematics years to make that last step. Shouldn’t we be excited to see this development? If we’re going to have AI, isn’t the point that it accelerates problem solving. If AI sped up life saving medical research by years or even just months by doing one last step, would people be having the same reaction?

I’ve seen the same people complaining about this regularly talk about using AI for coding. Why is it ok that so many companies have put programmers in this position, but all the sudden it’s bad for mathematicians?

I swear every time I pull into a manned checkout lane at one specific store I get the nastiest look from the cashiers. There are 3 functional self checkout kiosks and the scale on all of them is slightly under a single square foot. I’m not buying a thanksgiving feast, but forgive me if my regular shopping trip is more than a single cup of yoghurt and a TV dinner, and consequently cannot all fit on the self checkout scale. It’s not like I’m asking them to open a lane just for me, they’re just upset I’ve interrupted their scrolling session.

I try not to go there often, but sometimes my goto location is closed or doesn’t have something I know I’m going to need. I know it’s not all stores or employees because my normal one is pretty good and I can generally use the kiosk without issue, but it’s so frustrating that the culture has shifted to expect all people to use the self checkout regardless of their situation. And I say this as someone who uses them regularly.

In theory, no. In practice, yes. I think it’s generally fine for people to be able to use discretion in a lot of cases. That discretion is not always evenly applied, but there are plenty of laws that the average person doesn’t know and has no reason to even think about. I’d rather live in a world where the justice system is able to give people leniency and the benefit of the doubt than otherwise. If one of your brake lights is out it’s possible you have no idea. Technically it’s illegal to be driving. Most people would agree that it’s a good thing that you can be given a warning or something instead of have to face the same penalty as a person knowingly driving with the same issue.

I had to check the date of the article to make sure it was recent. How a lawyer hasn’t heard of the several times other lawyers have had issues with ChatGPT I have no idea. There’s no way this guy didn’t perjure himself be feigning ignorance. I feel like the bar needs to send out a written notice requiring some kind of acknowledgment to all lawyers so they can no longer claim ignorance if this happens to them.

Generally the prosecutor can decide if it’s worth it or not to proceed with a case like this, and not all of these even go that far. Cops have some leeway to make decisions on these issues, even if we don’t want them to. Cops letting you off with a warning even though you were speeding isn’t illegal. If a party was wronged they can press the issue, but in this case the cops were the wronged party so I’m sure the prosecutor wants to stay on their good side. I could also be super wrong and this may be a slam dunk case, but it seems like a huge waste of taxpayer resources that they would not be pursuing if not for the cops being involved as the supposed targets.

Maybe we have different lived experiences, but I certainly have not reported every threat I’ve overheard. I think people often say things they don’t mean, even in mixed company, and taking everything stated as a real credible threat seems misguided. I understand the concern, and obviously mass shootings are a huge issue, but I have friends with no history of violence who don’t own any guns say some truly threatening things about certain people and I think sometimes that’s just part of life. I’m not saying it’s the prettiest part of it, but sometimes we get frustrated and knowing when to actually be concerned is in my opinion an important part of navigating humanity. I’ve heard parents say that they sometimes want to hit/abandon their kids, and I don’t think any less of them as a parent or person. Sometimes we’re just not our best selves and so long as we don’t let that get the better of us, I think it’s ok to acknowledge that. I’m certainly not reporting them to CPS because they told me they thought about just leaving their crying kid at the park one time. I think the same thing applies with violence towards others.

I think if she was asking it for advice they would have been more explicit about that in the article.

Not the person you’re replying to, but I think there’s a difference between claiming she wasn’t charged with the right thing vs saying no one should be charged for planning a crime. I don’t think the intention of the law was to prevent people from writing things wherein they thought they were just venting privately. I understand that her understanding was incorrect, but I think the intention (venting vs creating fear and chaos) is an important factor. I think the law is to prevent posting bomb or shooting threats online or sending them directly to people.

I think there should be legal difference between saying “I hate X so much I just want to kill him” and “what gun would be best to kill a person of Y height and Z weight and what would be the best way to hide their body.” I’m familiar with the chat logs from the FSU situation and it wasn’t just venting. I’d probably want to see her full logs before making a legally binding decision, but from the summary it does not sound like a credible threat was made. It may have constituted a referral to law enforcement, but based on what I read law enforcement should have just done a check in and likely not charged. They are likely just salty and want to punish people who aren’t waving thin blue line flags.