Same here, on a big screen, I don't see anything notable. I really hope this isn't a mass delusion because YouTube started applying a sharpness ("edge enhancement") filter to videos to make them look sharper. It sure looks like that to me, because I hate this filter and how so many movie transfers have it added, with the ringing at the edges this filter leaves.
Yes, I missed the student using the teacher's trust in those tools to make them even more angry and neuter their angry email that they (probably) actually wrote themselves. Well-played.
I realize you might have failed to comprehend the level of my argument. It wasn't even about LLMs in particular, rather having someone/something else do your work for you. I read it as the student criticizing the teacher for not writing his own emails, since the teacher criticizes the students for not writing their own classwork. Whether it's an LLM or them hiring someone else to do the writing, this is what my rebuttal applied to. I saw what I thought was flawed reasoning and wanted to correct it. I hope it's clear why a student using an LLM (or another person) to write classwork is far more than a quality issue, whereas someone not being tested/graded using an LLM to prepare written material is "merely" a quality issue (and the personal choice to atrophy their mental fitness).
I don't think I was arguing for LLMs. I wish nobody used them. But the argument against a student using it for assignments is significantly different than that against people in general using them. It's similar to using a calculator or asking someone else for the answer: fine normally but not if the goal is to demonstrate that you learned/know something.
I admit I missed the joke. I read it as the usual "you hypocrite teacher, you don't want us using tools but you use them" argument I see. There's no need to be condescending towards me for that. I see now that the "joke" was about the unreliability of AI checkers and making the teacher really angry by suggesting that their impassioned email wasn't even their writing, bolstered by their insistence that checkers are reliable.
That's a new name I hadn't heard that fits well: unintended opcodes. I also like unofficial. Undocumented isn't correct because these are quite well documented.
They are well documented now, after reverse engineering.
The manufacturer did not document them, so they really were undocumented.
The same happened with many other CPUs, like Zilog Z80, Intel 8086 and the following x86 CPUs.
They all had undocumented instructions, which have been discovered by certain users through reverse engineering.
Some of the undocumented instructions were unintended, so they existed only due to cost-cutting techniques used in the design of the CPU, therefore the CPU manufacturer intended to remove them in future models and they had a valid reason to not document them.
However a few instructions that were undocumented for the public were documented for certain privileged customers, like Microsoft in the case of Intel CPUs, so they were retained in all future CPU models, for compatibility.
That was because LOADALL was impossible to preserve, since the internal state of the CPU changed in the next models.
80386 also had an undocumented LOADALL instruction, but it was encoded with a different opcode, as it was incompatible with the 80286 LOADALL, by restoring many more registers.
After 1990, no successors to LOADALL were implemented, because Intel introduced the "System Management Mode" instead, which provided similar facilities and much extra.
More and more sites I can't even visit because of this "prove you're human" because it's not compatible with older web browsers, even though the website it's blocking is.
I was thinking the same as parent while reading this. Mentally this activates the same thinking as on those medical tests with a high false positive rate and low incidence, so that most positives are false. I'd like to see in the article how they rule this out. Ideally I'd like to hear that they have measures in place that would allow accidental lapses in isolation to fail and they'd still be able to tell that it was Earth contamination. It's a reasonable concern and having it addressed (with something more satisfying than "they're experts, duh!") makes this kind of finding all the more interesting.
I mean, it's a concern, but there are numerous other odd things in the findings that would not be caused by ground contamination such as the amount of stardust contained in these samples versus other asteroid samples, or the huge amounts of clay/water created minerals found so far.
There are plenty of other articles on the isolation procedures they've taken so far to this point including putting off opening the container for months because of a stripped screw.
reply