All right, they have the range. Let's say a carrier is 700 km away and the drone has a range of 1200 km. Great.
Now, does it have the kill chain to supply it with an accurate targeting fix and update it during the flight? Or, does it have a radar good enough to find the Lincoln on its own? If it doesn't, then it's a really big ocean. But sure, they've got the range.
Well, as a general rule, I don't do business with people who lie to me.
You've got a business, and you sent me junk mail, but you made it look like some official government thing to get me to open it? I'm done, just because you lied on the envelope. I don't care how badly I need your service. There's a dozen other places that can provide it; I'll pick one of them rather than you, because you've shown yourself to be dishonest right out of the gate.
Same thing with an AI (or a business that creates an AI). You're willing to lie about who you are (or have your tool do so)? What else are you willing to lie to me about? I don't have time in my life for that. I'm out right here.
Out of curiosity, given two code submissions that are completely identical—one written solely by a human and one assisted by AI—why should its provenance make any difference to you? Is it like fine art, where it’s important that Picasso’s hand drew it? Or is it like an instruction manual, where the author is unimportant?
Similarly, would you consider it to be dishonest if my human colleague reviewed and made changes to my code, but I didn’t explicitly credit them?
As an attorney, I know copyright law. (This is not legal advice.) There's nothing about copyright law that says you have to credit an AI coding agent for contributing to your work. The person receiving the code has to perform their due diligence in any case to determine whether the author owns it or has permission from the owner to contribute it.
Can you back this up with legal precedence? To my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been ruled by the courts.
Additionally, this raises another big issue. A few years ago, a couple guys used software (what you could argue was a primitive AI) to generated around 70 billion unique pieces of music which amounts to essentially every piece of copyrightable music using standard music scales.
Is the fact that they used software to develop this copyrighted material relevant? If not, then their copyright should certainly be legal and every new song should pay them royalties.
It seems that using a computer to generate results MUST be added as an additional bit of analysis when it comes to infringement cases and fair use if not a more fundamental acknowledgement that computer-generated content falls under a different category (I'd imagine the real argument would be over how much of the input was human vs how much was the system).
Of course, this all sets aside the training of AI using copyrighted works. As it turns out, AI can regurgitate verbatim large sections of copyrighted works (up to 80% according to this study[0]) showing that they are in point of fact outright infringing on those copyrights. Do we blow up current AI to maintain the illusion of copyright or blow up current copyright law to preserve AI?
You're asking a lot of very good and thoughtful questions, but none are directly related to the immediate issue, which is "do I have to credit the AI model?".
Why does the provenance make any difference? Let me increase your options. Option 1: You completely hand-wrote it. Option 2: You were assisted by an AI, but you carefully reviewed it. Option 3: You were assisted by an AI (or the AI wrote the whole thing), and you just said, "looks good, YOLO".
Even if the code is line-for-line identical, the difference is in how much trust I am willing to give the code. If I have to work in the neighborhood of that code, I need to know what degree of skepticism I should be viewing it with.
That's the thing. As someone evaluating pull requests, should you trust the code based on its provenance, or should you trust it based on its content? Automated testing can validate code, but it can't validate people.
ISTM the most efficient and objective solution is to invest in AI more on both sides of the fence.
In the future, that may be fine. We're not in that future yet. We're still at a place where I don't fully trust AI-only code to be as solid as code that is at least thoroughly reviewed by a knowledgeable human.
(Yes, I put "AI-only" and "knowledgeable" in there as weasel words. But I think that with them, it is not currently a very controversial case.)
You are spamming the whole fucking thread with the same nonsense. It is instructed to hide that the PR was made via Claude Code. I don't know why people who are so AI forward like yourself have such a problem with telling people that they use AI for coding/writing, it's a weirdly insecure look.
what's insecure about it? if it is up to the institution to make that decision - you can still do it. Claude is not stopping you from making that decision
It will cost him some of his remaining support among the MAGA faithful. Some of them are just in love with Trump, or at least with the image Trump presents. Some are in love with Trump's (stated) policies, like "America first" and "no new wars".
And even of those who are in love with Trump's image, this may tarnish the image enough for some of them to fall out of love with it.
It won't cost him all of MAGA. But it will cost him some.
I mean personally even a white Christian european country Ukraine didn't garner much maga support, Iran are "brown Muslims" and the "enemy". I feel it doesn't have much impact except for the truly ideologically antiwar otherwise most magas seem to without much difficulty flit between contradictory opinions, especially if Trump said it. It will cost some of the support yes, but I think that's because of people like Tucker Carlson.
To clarify my point above, I meant "the resulting carnage" among America's armed forces, not Iran's.
MAGA obviously doesn't care about carnage that we dole out to the Iranians, including Iranian children, but they presumably will object to a tide of body bags arising from the actions of a President who promised them "No more foreign wars."
At some point, the only thing that will arrest the fall of the dollar will be backing it with gold, at a MUCH higher price, such that all the dollars outstanding match our gold reserves. It would be somewhere between $50,000 and $150,000 per ounce.
And then what? The spoils system? Rampant incompetence?
And, we have to get rid of it because it's not in the Constitution? You know what else isn't in the Constitution? DHS. The IRS. ICE. An enormous number of other agencies.
The Constitution gives very little guidance on the Executive Branch, other than the President and Vice President. That does not mean that hiring people in federal agencies is unconstitutional! It just means that the Constitution is silent on the topic, neither requiring nor prohibiting very much.
Then back to the system defined in the Constitution, it gives enough guidance. If you think the President is not enough for the Executive - amend the Constitution, used to be enough for ~200 years though.
The Constitution does not define a civil service system. You seem to interpret that as saying that any system is unconstitutional until the Constitution is amended to define one. That is... let's just call it "very much a minority interpretation".
We are not going to either amend the Constitution nor abolish the civil service just because some pseudonymous online account says we should.
The Constitution defines just three branches of power, if the "civil service system" has a power and is not one of the branches then it unconstitutional by common sense and elementary logic. And this "civil servant system" evidentially has power and is not a part of either of the three branches (which are all enumerated in the Constitution) ergo it's an unconstitutional junta.
>We are not going to either amend the Constitution nor abolish the civil service just because some pseudonymous online account says we should.
Did not you participate in the mass crying out on this very site when DOGE had been firing the "civil servants"?
The constitution says the president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". That means hiring people to enforce the laws, that's the civil servant system.
That means the whole Executive branch is the president and if he can delegate his power to some other people he also should be able to revoke the delegation and fire those people, which is not the case now. The president is semi-successful in firing these "servants" and some judges insist that it's illegal.
How is it stupid? If I truly believed in such constitutional purity I would have no problems saying a simple yes or no to it. For example sometimes I am accused of hating a particular religion, I gladly say I am not a fan of any religion and name a few to make it clear.
Again, its a simple question. Just answer yes or no. Do you or do you not believe in the dissolution of those agencies per your interpretation of the constitution?
There are many things that are not in the Constitution: the USAF, computers, antibiotics, sea cruises, cars, steak, etc. Not being in the Constitution does not make them unconstitutional. Hope this helps.
As for dissolution of those agencies, my answer is: no. You have to ask a question before demanding an answer.
Why not? You literally said "We don't have either in the Constitution so whatever you call it, it has to be removed from power.". What's different about ICE and DHS but not about governments having civil services? Or the other things you listed?
If t hat's bad how do you feel about ICE and DHS or any other agency contracting private companies? They are even less accountable then. Why don't you support banning government agencies from hiring private companies?
I feel you want to talk about ICE and DHS instead of the topic at hand, the Deep State/"civil service". I feel the government contracting private companies is fine, the government is accountable so are the private companies. I don't support banning government agencies from hiring private companies because I don't see how the country would benefit from have government making everything it uses in the course of executing its duties.
>the comment you replied to literally said "Not being in the Constitution does not make them unconstitutional."
Then why make stupid statements in the first place. I am not a telepath. Thats absolutely not what your original comment said. Why make such stupid comments in the first place and then later lie and say "No I didn't mean that".
"We don't have either in the Constitution so whatever you call it, it has to be removed from power."
Dude you're hilarious, you're one to call someone having cognitive impairment when you are literally saying something and the exact opposite of the same thing and then somehow being unable to see the obvious question already in AnimalMuppet's and my first comment to you. Get yourself checked man.
I don't necessarily disagree with the existence of ICE and DHS but you do, and then you said you don't, somehow.
And if you feel the Civil Service Act or any other act violates the constitution, nobody's stopping you from arranging for a lawsuit against it. Go do that and come back.
Institutions are not made of anything, they are abstract entities and not physical objects. But even if we accept your simplistic understanding of "made of", the difference still remains, something "made of" something else is not the something else. E.g. a car is made from iron yet it's a car and not iron, hope this helps.
And why are you burned out? Because you're trying to do uni, and a business, and consulting, and a girlfriend at the same time, and you don't have the time and the brainpower to do it all.
You are finite, friend. You cannot carry this much.
So you have to pick. I do not know, but I suspect that if you're going to do the startup, you need to drop both the uni and the consulting. (Your girlfriend might have a better read on it than me; she's certainly closer to the situation than I am.)
reply