You are ignoring ALL of the of the positive applications of AI from several decades of development, and only focusing on the negative aspects of generative AI.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of some applications:

• In healthcare as a tool for earlier detection and prevention of certain diseases
• For anomaly detection in intrusion detection system, protecting web servers
• Disaster relief for identifying the affected areas and aiding in planning the rescue effort
• Fall detection in e.g. phones and smartwatches that can alert medical services, especially useful for the elderly.
• Various forecasting applications that can help plan e.g. production to reduce waste. Etc…

There have even been a lot of good applications of generative AI, e.g. in production, especially for construction, where a generative AI can the functionally same product but with less material, while still maintaining the strength. This reduces cost of manufacturing, and also the environmental impact due to the reduced material usage.

Does AI have its problems? Sure. Is generative AI being misused and abused? Definitely. But just because some applications are useless it doesn’t mean that the whole field is.

A hammer can be used to murder someone, that does not mean that all hammers are murder weapons.

The source paper is available online, is published in a peer reviewed journal, and has over 600 citations. I’m inclined to believe it.

That’s why these systems should never be used as the sole decision makers, but instead work as a tool to help the professionals make better decisions.

Keep the human in the loop!

While there might be some truth to that, I don’t think MS 365 would qualify as “developed for the government.”

1. I imagine that the company would have the burden of proof that any of these criteria are fulfilled.

2. Third-party rights most likely refers to the use of third-party libraries, where the source code for those isn’t open source, and therefore can’t be disclosed, since they aren’t part of the government contract. Security concerns are probably things along the line of “Making this code open source would disclose classified information about our military capabilities” and such.

Switzerland are very good bureaucracy and I trust that they know how to make policies that actually stick.

As long as it’s maintained. Wrong documentation can often be worse than no documentation.

Comment should describe “why?”, not “how?”, or “what?”, and only when the “why?” is not intuitive.

The problem with comments arise when you update the code but not the comments. This leads to incorrect comments, which might do more harm than no comments at all.

E.g. Good comment: “This workaround is due to a bug in xyz”

Bad comment: “Set variable x to value y”

Note: this only concerns code comments, docstrings are still a good idea, as long as they are maintained

Example: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/600410-germany-gelsenkirchen-renamed-taylor-swift/

Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.

I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.

1. In what way is it not covered, according to you?

2. If the news story is, e.g., non-political, does not try to influence your opinion on something, and is based on first-party facts that can be independently verified and that are correctly represented, the source does not matter for the factuality of the news story, even if it is from a non-democratic source.

That’s covered under “Consider the source.”

The source having ties to a non-democratic government does not automatically invalidate the source, but it should make you scrutinize it more sceptically in relation to the other criteria.

It literally says “and” on the second to last row

Not to be too pedantic, but Californium is Cf

Damn right, you’d miss the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster drink before the dinner. Not ok.

Being able to handle it, and being able to handle it efficiently enough are two very distinct things. The hash method might be able to handle long strings, but it might take several seconds/minutes to process them, slowing down the application significantly. Imagine a malicious user being able to set a password with millions (or billions!) of characters.

Therefore, restricting it to a small, but still sufficiently big, number of characters might help prevent DoS-attacks without any notable reduction in security for regular users.

Not the Doppler effect, as that only applies to moving objects, but instead the inverse square law, where the energy of the sound wave decreases by the square of the distance from the origin, since it spreads in a sphere with the energy being spread across the surface of the sphere, resulting in a very quick dropoff in the loudness.

Straight to jail!

Isn’t it also partly that as processing power increased, you could do more sophisticated compression/decompression in real time compared to previously, allowing these more complex compression algorithms to actually be viable?

I.e. they actually knew how to do it before, they just didn’t have the power to implement it

How is this an ad? They are informing you that you can get more out of your subscription. Would it be better that they’re didn’t inform you about this and hid it away in some obscure menu somewhere?

There are lots of reasons to not like Google/YouTube, but I can’t see how this is one of them.

Edit: There is also a clearly visible dismiss button.

Now I imagine them just writing an incoherent string of words. “Tomato car house fireman oven duck garden rice…”

It depends on if we assume a discrete or continuous distribution.