SLA? If that means something like “service level agreement” (I don’t know, you didn’t specify, I’m guessing) then I can still find examples where it falls well below what I would expect from a public service such that if there was an agreement in place that I would definitely be opposed to it as a tax payer.

And if X isn’t viable there are other platforms that are.

I mean yes obviously, there are much more viable platforms like Mastodon, or even a self-hosted website.

Is Twitter/X viable for that? They can decide, and have, to randomly put information behind login walls.

I don’t fully agree with OP but I think we could probably do with adjusting some of them. Personally I think with current AI, if somebody composes something by making multiple AI prompts and selects the best result, they should get some kind of authorship because they used a tool to create something.

Detecting whether a student used ChatGPT to write an assignment can be challenging, but there are some signs and strategies you can consider:

• Unusual Language or Style: ChatGPT may produce content that is unusually advanced or complex for a student’s typical writing style or ability. Look for inconsistencies in language usage, vocabulary, and sentence structure.

• Inconsistent Knowledge: ChatGPT’s knowledge is based on information up to its last training cut-off in September 2021. If the assignment contains information or references to events or developments that occurred after that date, it might indicate that they used an AI model.

• Generic Information: If the content of the assignment seems to consist of general or widely available information without specific personal insights or original thought, it could be a sign that ChatGPT was used.

• Inappropriate Sources: Check the sources cited in the assignment. If they cite sources that are unusual or not relevant to the topic, it may indicate that they generated the content using an AI model.

• Plagiarism Detection Tools: Use plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin or Copyscape, to check for similarities between the assignment and online sources. While these tools may not specifically detect AI-generated content, they can identify similarities between the assignment and publicly available text.

• Interview or Discussion: Consider discussing the assignment topic with the student during a one-on-one interview or discussion. If they struggle to explain or elaborate on the content, it may indicate they didn’t personally generate it.

It’s important to approach these situations with caution and avoid making accusations without concrete evidence. If you suspect that a student used an AI model to complete an assignment, consider discussing your concerns with the student and offering them the opportunity to explain or rewrite the assignment in their own words.

Absolutely, I post much more here because I know actual people will actually read it and may actually respond like they would to an actual human. It’s like the old days of the internet.

It’s pretty bad even in the context of British Colonialism and notably recent.

The British Indian Ocean Territory was formed specifically to prevent the native inhabitants from gaining self-determination, allowing for a joint UK/US military base to be set up. The inhabitants were forcibly expelled in the 1960s, and ever since then the British government have taken active, sometimes deceptive, measures to prevent them from ever returning. You should look it up.

That particular jurisdiction exists pretty unethically as well, which somewhat puts me off sites that use it.

It’s always been a pet peeve of mine when TLDs get used for something other than their purpose. I get that countries have benefited from it, but that’s random chance and not what the system was set up for. I know this is a small thing to get annoyed about (so don’t take me too seriously) but if it were up to me, .ai domains should have to prove their connection to Anguilla.

No, if it was unlimited, I should be able to pipe /dev/urandom to it for fun if that’s what I choose to do. What’s this about “gluttony”? They sold the service as that.

Why, you know there isn’t mythical endless and free source of crab legs right?

If there’s not then they have no business selling an unlimited supply of it.

Nobody should reasonably think there is. “Endless” is advertising.

Where I’m from services should be as advertised, legally so.

If they were just honest about it and say “this is expensive so we need to put the prices up”, I would have a lot more respect for that.

I remember in the 90s, my dial-up provider started offering an “unmetered” plan with no per minute charge (for younger people, believe it or not we were once charged by the minute for connecting to the internet). After a short while we were inundated with emails from the ISP complaining that people were “abusing the service” by going on the internet for “hours at a time”. Just reminded me of this and how it’s an old excuse.

No, you can’t “abuse” an unlimited service by using too much, it’s unlimited.

I was also, initially, a little bit confused with how this was being framed. I understand now having read it more closely, but on first reading of the line “The idea is to provide one more alternative – beside the Tor Network – to browse the internet with more privacy” because of the word “alternative” I thought you were suggesting it as a replacement for Tor.

Of course yes, but it is mildly infuriating. :)

Is this a reference to anything or what? I can’t find the link.

I don’t get upset about people having a bit of fun, but my personal opinion is that this joke is tired and there’s a standard for news stories.

Sure but Loch Ness is on the 3rd most populated island in the world, it’s comprehensively explored, there’s nothing newsworthy to say about it unless there was a vast oversight and that would be the head line, not the “monster”.

This whole “Nessie” thing counts as mildly infuriating to me at this point. The whole loch ness monster thing was a fun thing to wonder about as child, but are people really taking it “seriously?” I’m not even sure if this article was written as a serious news story or not, it’s certainly light on substantial new evidence, but then it’s a BBC article not presented as satire - are we supposed to all be in on the tired joke or is there really something new and substantial there?

deleted by creator