Well, I worked all kinds of things, but office jobs I actually found more stressful than physical labour to be honest. What I meant is the expectation, that in modern jobs you have to be activly doing things all the time. (Or pretending to). While hearding your main activity was watching (and be ready for the need of action).
For instance, here is associativity defined on addition over a and b:
a + b = b + a
What if you add a twice?
a + a + b
To do that without numbers, you just leave it there. Given associativity, you probably want to normalize (or standardize) expressions so they are easier to compare and work with:
i.e. a + b + a => a + a + b
Here I use => to mean "equal, and preferred/simplified/normalized".
You can go on, and prove anything about non-numbers without numbers, even if you normally would use numbers to simplify the relations and proofs.
Numbers are just a shortcut for dealing with repetitions, by taking into account the commonality of say a + a + a, and b + b + b. But if you do non-math math with those expressions, they still work. Less efficiently than 3a and 3b, but by definition they are equal and so still work.
A pre LLM paper with fabricated citations would demonstrate will to cheat by the author.
A post LLM paper with fabricated citations: same thing and if the authors attempt to defend themselves with something like, we trusted the AI, they are sloppy, probably cheaters and not very good at it.
Publix in the southeast US will give you anything that rings up wrong for free. I shopped there for 20+ years and only remember getting a handful of things free.
> If I gave you a gun without a safety could you be the one to blame when it goes off because you weren’t careful enough?
Absolutely. Many guns don't have safties. You don't load a round in the chamber unless you intend on using it.
A gun going off when you don't intend is a negligent discharge. No ifs, ands or buts. The person in possession of the gun is always responsible for it.
> Maybe you get put on a list so US banks can't send you money anymore too.
This is a good example, because the US government routinely passes laws that prevent people from transacting using the dollar system (which is basically the world financial system) and this is OK, but the EU requiring companies that operate in their market to obey different laws is not OK?
I don't really get the logic here, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Thanks for mentioning this. I built the same thing a year ago for myself in dozen lines of AWK. Looks like great minds think alike :)
In my opinion this is the most practical approach for real world projects. You get benefits like avoiding outdated documentation without huge upfront costs.
Yes. That is absolutely the case. One of the
Most popular handguns does not have a safety switch that must be toggled before firing. (Glock series handguns)
If someone performs a negligent discharge, they are responsible, not Glock. It does have other safety mechanisms to prevent accidental fires not resulting from a trigger pull.
Agreed, but I don't think you need to go as far back as the 19th century, even early 20th century it was the same in some places in eastern Europe. Out of 7 siblings in my Dad's family only one went to college. The spread between oldest and youngest was about 12 years. All went to school which was dismissed much earlier, after which children were expected to help in the fields with animals, house work, etc. before doing homework. The one pause, and really only time they wore nicer clothes, was on Sundays for church. The person who went to college would be back each summer to help with the grain and potato harvests. My life by comparison is a life of luxury.
Modern science is designed from the top to the bottom to produce bad results. The incentives are all mucked up. It's absolutely not surprising that AI is quickly becoming yet-another factor lowering quality.
Even if it were technically unnecessary (in some hypothetical future where privilege escalation became impossible?), legal, compliance, and insurance requirements would still be there.
Python for awhile had its own cultural issues. I guess, coming from more of a C and lisp background, the stuff you're mentioning seemed playful and fun to me and I didn't get the sense anyone expected to write performance critical code in it anyway.
Python forums in contrast to me included neverending justifications for why whitespace and indent formatting was critical and this kind of odd (to me) imperfect type system implementation, like the whole thing was some toy language pretending to be more than it was (in the sense that if you wanted something more complete in language or performance you'd go elsewhere).
Perl just seemed to know its place and not take itself too seriously.
Things changed though. I haven't touched Perl in years but use Python all the time. I never understood why Python got the traction it did given its performance limitations compared to some other languages but I do think I understand why people stopped learning Perl.
This is not the riposte you might think it is. Duplication serves a different purpose in print; it affords readers the ability to read at leisure without having to pass the memo around.
> The problem with using them is that humans have to review the content for accuracy.
There are (at least) two humans in this equation. The publisher, and the reader. The publisher at least should do their due diligence, regardless of how "hard" it is (in this case, we literally just ask that you review your OWN CITATIONS that you insert into your paper). This is why we have accountability as a concept.
> I don’t consider it the reviewers responsibility to manually verify all citations are real
I guess this explains all those times over the years where I follow a citation from a paper and discover it doesn’t support what the first paper claimed.
