When I started playing online chess, which was around a year before the hype came with corona, I checked out both websites chess.com and Lichess. I very quickly decided to use Lichess since it just appeared superior in all aspects and it, in my opinion, look way better.
Almost all of the people I met who play chess prefer chess.com and I just don't understand it. I just never managed to warm up with that site
She refused to attend court in the UK. After a lot of pressure she reluctantly agreed to appear via video link. She was sentenced in absence by the UK court to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months. The UK court had no choice but to suspend her sentence as her lawyers made it clear she would never travel to the UK to serve time.
Meanwhile the Wikipedia entry makes zero mention of any attempts by the US justice system to prosecute her. There was an attempt at a civil lawsuit by the Dunn family in the US, but no sign of a criminal lawsuit.
It seems you don't understand the difference between a conviction and serving a sentence. She was convicted, but has not served any time. Your own link confirms that she was convicted.
The equivalent crime in the U.S. is "vehicular homicide" which is a state-level crime. The general sentence for that in the U.S. is usually a suspended sentence of 1 year or less, unless substance abuse or extreme negligence was involved, so she's effectively serving the same sentence here as she would in the U.S., i.e., none. (Yes, the U.S. is very lenient about this.) That's why the U.S. won't extradite her. Over here, she wouldn't have served any time for what she did, and the U.S. generally won't extradite citizens to countries where the punishment for the crime is significantly in excess of what it would be in the U.S. This usually works against the U.S., as many countries (including the U.K.) frequently won't extradite to the U.S. because our punishments are harsher.
If she ever travels to a state with an extradition treaty with the U.K. that also has a vehicular homicide equivalent, she can be extradited to the U.K. to serve actual time. The U.K. has one of the largest extradition treaty networks, so basically she's prohibited from traveling outside the U.S.
But you know, keep ranting about the laws without understanding how they work. It will serve you well in life.
I mean, putting your penis in someone who didn't agree is rape. The fact that you use threats instead of using violence doesn't really change what it is.
I spent a lot of my life outside the English-speaking world, and this was a small sideline for a while.
I get it wasn't the nicest way to earn a living. My day job was loftier but poorly-paid.
Still, I've got respect for anyone who got by doing this, it can be fun and interesting with the right material, but the clients are often dicks and the money is rubbish. It's quite stressful too, even given the low stakes. I never wanted a bad grade.
My more significant sideline, and the one that ultimately got me into good work, was copy-editing. Also dead by AI.
It's hard not to be bitter about this. I needed those jobs to keep me going whilst I made it in my chosen field. The rich kids in my sector never had to hustle and won't be affected. The folks doing it out of Nairobi, and the state school kids trying to get by overseas will.
The article certainly signals that we're supposed to feel sympathy for the folks in Kenya. But they are knowingly helping people cheat, right? The next thing, we'll be asked to feel sympathy for moms who kill their kids.
> But they are knowingly helping people cheat, right?
In the same way a mom and pop pizza joint willingly serving someone who is trying to be on a strict healthy diet is helping people cheat, yes, but if McDonalds then rolled in and took away all their business, is there no room to feel sympathy for the loss of mom and pop's livelihood? It is not a binary situation.
That doesn't make sense. If you want to take the food angle then the other serves homework. If you want to take the fraud angle then the other facilitates dietary fraud.
To be fair your dietician/healthcare professional might also be disappointed, but you're ultimately right, just like with college nobody else cares. Of course, that was already implied from the onset. I find it intriguing that you've only just come to that realization.
In fairness, I wasn't doing this for Americans. I would say the Anglo-American model of schooling, which treats students like customers, is very much to blame.
The industry wouldn't exist if students were result expelled for cheating. It's pretty obvious when someone's doing it.
> I’m more and more convinced that all of AI engineering is Neijuan (内卷, meaning curl inwards). In China it describes a system that demands ever more effort and competition without improving output. The way in which it sometimes shows up in the West is the 996 nonsense. The English term for Neijuan is “Involution” from the book Agricultural Involution. Agricultural involution describes the intensification of farming that raises productivity per square meter while leaving productivity per head unchanged.
it reminds me of a thread I read on PTT, Taiwan's Reddit. AI finally achieved what humans could not. Managers must give exact context for what they want, must pay exact wages (tokens), and can't delay salary payments (which seems to be a problem in China).
Starting with agentic task-time "grounding" being just good documentation, and "skills" being just playbooks and user guides.
Hell, skills are increasingly paired with dedicated CLI tools, that remove jank from actual utilities and adapts them to be token efficient.
So now, any CLI `tool` people want AI to use eventually grows `tool/SKILL.md` and then a `tool-for-llms` wrapper that exposes task-specific, logical, higher level interface, then the skill is rewritten in terms of "for LLMs" wrapper. The procedural knowledge moves from Markdown into the wrapper, making the skill more token efficient, and both skill and the tools are optimized for common tasks and... at this point, we are doing actual UX engineering.
Now the truly interesting part is the difference between what's good UX/DX for LLMs vs humans. Turns out, the conceptual/abstract/cognitive part is pretty much the same: which is why skills still look indistinguishable from well-written documentation for humans, and why the commands exposed by "tool but for LLMs" make sense to us. Same way of grouping ideas into higher level concepts.
No, the main difference is just that LLMs are perfectly content with tightly packed unprettified JSON, or other forms of Perl line noise. The tool output doesn't need to look nice, or to have any spatial structure - they're reading it token by token anyway, and the tokens come from a tokenizer that's reading it byte by byte.
That points at an interesting asymmetry for humans. LLMs are doing I/O the same way in both directions: sequences in, sequences out. Humans only do sequential output - inputs, particularly visual, are processed holistically.
For us, what's easy to read is hard to write, and what's easy to write is hard to read. LLMs don't have this friction.
(I don't know what the implications of this are, I just find this interesting.)
I never quite realized this until just reading this and now it has come into sharp focus. Incredible.
I've spent years trying to convince my director to have our org invest in documentation and monitoring to no avail. Now he is telling us to spend dedicated time on monitoring and documentation so that agents can better diagnose and fix bugs. He is doing this because his boss is mad that our org isn't "agentic" enough.
Except... because we underinvested in the past we have a bunch of services where the institutional knowledge is gone and people are having AI write the documentation...
There is no “required” amount. More gets produced using the same area, using more people, but keeping these people in poverty because productivity per capita doesn’t increase. Instead the gains from the increased volume of production get captured by an elite. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41257-019-0021-y.
This sounds like all engineering, rather than just AI. The greatest effort given to the last small difficult details, often for results that seem trifling but which matter at scale.
But it's a poor argument. The code improvements with these things is hardly marginal - Opus 4 was only 16 months ago. How many of the grumblers would want to ditch their modern stalwarts and return to it? What is marginal is the nitpicking - and like anything in tighter bounds, it's more intense with a narrower scope.
These threads always have many dissatisfied voices with repeating complaints - about overwrought thinking and disappointing output - alongside others who are amazed at the sudden real extra capabilities. Both are true at once - capabilities are rapidly increasing, but nowhere near ideal, which is why this attempt to tag it as Neijuan, though interesting, is ultimately a load of bollocks.
It surely resonates if your reason for working is to extract wealth from others (ie. be a parasite) but if it's to improve things for everyone, then it's wonderful. You might still work just as much and get paid just as much but produce a lot more because of technology.
That's our moat, right there. I'm starting doing clean-up jobs now, advising non-technical users on where they're going wrong. I had a guy recently who'd spent well over a month on Claude, running up the wrong tree on a research question.
AI appears to be empowering non-technical users, but whether it's making them more productive or actually answering their questions is a completely different matter.
I'm also convinced software engineering tools like git and markdown are currently the best way to use AI for most things even unrelated to software development. E.g., I think using markdown notes + LaTeX + git for writing contracts is more
efficient than using Word + Copilot, which are the tools I would expect a lawyer to use.
totally agree with the repo idea. working with AI in a git repo and allowing it to write markdown files it slowly builds context over time. i knew a guy who had been using the same session for weeks because he felt he had invested too much time in building the context and was scared to close the session.
it can't basically, because all the ai's are build around the tech community, doing complex coding automation etc. nobody thinking about how normal user gone use it
I worked in PR for a bit. I'm confident in saying most of our information ecosystem is the product of numerous competing (or cooperating) PR agencies pushing their clients' products, policies, narratives, and national agendas.
If it's in a big news outlet, there's a pretty good chance someone put it there. Most news stories start life as press releases. Astroturf groups provide the quote-fodder.
If you're into this stuff, I can't recommend All the Worst Humans by Phil Elwood enough, fantastic read (to be taken with a pinch of salt, the guy's a PR hack after all). NYT review here: https://archive.md/cNmdV
Yeah, this is my use case for skills. Even with good documentation, it feels better to have things local and easy to tweak.
I'd add to that I've also used them as a style guide. The project involved taking in unstructured inputs and creating structured outputs. Lots of choices along the way, and it seemed a neat way to encapsulate decisions we'd made as a team.
Storage, well it's just for the one project, so the repo. Can't say I've used them beyond that.
reply