As all programmers know: naming things (abstracting ideas for human interpretation) is hard.

If you're asking the question, most likely yes. If you have evidence of the problem being AI slop, no.

And even if it _was_ related to AI, they would not admit it. First course of action is to blame user/programmer error and then QA process error. You shall not blame the golden calf. I am half serious and half not. But I do recommend reading the book "The Field Guide to Understanding 'Human Error'" in conjunction with my hyperbole.

Remember: when AI succeeds, it's because AI is great. When AI fails, you're prompting it wrong.

Slopify

The scientific method is generally to ask a question, and test it, before randomly collected evidence makes the obvious undeniable.

Essentially, yes, as I understand it. Elon's "investment" of millions in the current administration is paying dollars on the penny.

It's also broken for Safari (on Mac).

And Brave

It's the formality of the language. It sounds robotic.

As a Missourian who is regular embarrassed by Senator Hawley, I must say that he brings the goods when he has the opportunity to grill an oligarch.

I think it's reasonable to request the person making the assertion to back it up. It's not on the audience to either only debunk or accept the assertion. It can just be rejected.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why is an anodyne factual claim an “extraordinary claim”? What makes that particular claim extraordinary? They didn’t claim to have discovered perpetual motion or something you can’t prove or disprove yourself, just shared a historical fact you can easily just check up on if you choose not to believe them.

>Why is an anodyne factual claim an “extraordinary claim”? What makes that particular claim extraordinary?

FWIW I tried to get AI to substantiate it and came up empty. Maybe it's not as "extraordinary" as "Obama was a reptilian alien" or whatever, but for everything else what counts as "extraordinary" depends on your prejudices, I suppose. Regardless of whether it's "extraordinary" or not, it's definitely not common knowledge and needs to be substantiated rather than asserted without evidence.

It's a $600,000 car. I don't think they're widening access.

> most of the tech leadership has to play along

Many of them orchestrated the situation.

That's a pretty sinister system when the dam builders are suing the work of those downstream to build their damn. What happens when everyone downstream has been starved to death?

The very people calling the shots have so far been the most removed from the consequences of their actions. They have no incentive to be responsible or considerate of others.

Obviously the pitchforks come out before then.

But! Does Musk have his robot army or not at this time? That will determine how the pitchfork mob turns out.