What hype? I have and will continue to be anti-BigAI from the very beginning. Until the mechanism is no longer that of a probabilistic model, the data gathering that of massive copyright infringment and the runtime that of a "let us burn more fossil fuels to power as many transistors as we can" I will continue to avoid it without any regrets about missed "productivity" or whatever.
That's not a technical problem though is it? I don't see legal scenarios where unverified machine translation is acceptable - you need to get a certified translator to sign off on any translations and I also don't see how changing that would be a good thing.
I was briefly considering trying to become a professional translator, and I partly didn't pursue it because of the huge use of MT. I predict demand for human translators will continue to fall quickly unless there are some very high-profile incidents related to MT errors (and humans' liability for relying on them?). Correspondingly the supply of human translators may also fall as it appears like a less credible career option.
I think the point here is that, while such a translation wouldn't be admissible in court, many of us already used machine translation to read some legal agreement in a language we don't know.
Again, citing the UK here, if you go to your doctor and get a prescription, all you need to pick it up is your name + address (said verbally over the counter) - no ID needed. I do not have statistics for the false pickup rates but I very much doubt it is anything to worry about.
In the US lots of prescriptions work the same. But some prescriptions and some over the counter (OTC) medicine requires presenting a legal ID to purchase because of a variety of laws.
Blood pressure prescriptions, no ID lots of times. OTC meds which are ingredients to make meth, need an ID.
> all you need to pick it up is your name + address (said verbally over the counter) - no ID needed.
Does it include controlled substances? Sure, I can pick up ibuprofen 800mg with just my name and DOB said verbally, but whatever is on schedule II (US term, but think Adderall) I required to show my ID.
When buying alcohol in a physical store, in the UK we have the "Challenge 21/25" schemes https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/facts/information-about-alcohol... such that yes if you look very young the cashier/automated checkout assistant will ask for your ID but in most cases, they will approve without checking anything. I do not see any positives to requiring identification for all transactions.
> I do not see any positives to requiring identification for all transactions.
It is not about requiring ID for all transactions, it is about when ID is actually asked for (which may not be every time), the information can be provided in a more privacy-friendly way.
What prohibits Google from offering a way to register your long-term app signing key without identity verification, publishing apps that are still verified by their automated tooling and then opting in to the usual denylisting/app store banning methods if those apps are malicious? This identity verification requirement is basically just an easy way for illiberal governments to find ways to crack down on apps they do not like (such as say, ICEBlock or whatever)
Banning all apps signed by the same key is already possible. Requiring signing keys to be anonymously registered with Google would add some friction to simply rotating your signing keys when you get caught doing something naughty (depending on how much Google account creation and key registration can be automated against Google’s anti-bot protection, though), but definitely not as much as full identity verification and payment of 25 USD (even if that isn't foolproof, either, and has the annoying side effect of unfortunately slowing down small-scale freeware developers at the same time, too).
Perhaps the focus of the team behind the compiler has changed over the years - but there is still backwards compatibility (via TaSTy), the new syntax changes are not mandatory (for the moment) and when they do become so there will be a fully automatic (and correct) rewrite. There are new libraries exploring "direct style" but you can still use cats-effect or ZIO if you prefer. If anything, Scala has a "too much choice" problem (and kinda a community one).
To add to the above - I see a parallel to the "if you are a good and diligent developer there is nothing to stop you from writing secure C code" argument. Which is to say - sure, if you also put in extra effort to avoid all the unsafe bits that lead to use-after-free or race conditions it's also possible to write perfect assembly, but in practice we have found that using memory safe languages leads to a huge reduction of safety bugs in production. I think we will find similarly that not using AI will lead to a huge reduction of bugs in production later on when we have enough data to compare to human-generated systems. If that's a pre-existing bias, then so be it.
There are already hefty fines for owners of businesses where the people are not working "legally". There's a "share code" that employers are supposed to check to verify visas. All the laws and machinery is already there and it does not look particularly high-cost to me.
reply