An alternative framing. "This software could be so fast, but it's bogged down by having to support every single workflow it's ever once even accidentally supported."

From the top of my head.

* Microsoft Windows

* Microsoft Excel

* Python/Pandas

* Web browsers

They all do great things and deserve all the praise for maintaining backwards compatibility, havoc would have ensued otherwise.

Does not mean that they should not be replaced though.

Don't forget that this emboldens the government to define what is and isn't healthy. Something that's worked out super well in the US.

Why?

But didn't you know that social media is causing all of the problems we have right now? Haven't you seen the graph that shows society with no problems until social media, and now we have all the problems?

I haven't used it, but I think this is well targeted by https://github.com/dabapps/django-zen-queries.

> Third, caching without taking the context into account will probably lead to data corruption one way or another.

One can only hope it's data corruption and not a sensitive data leak.

What solutions are 100% accurate?

The problem is that AI detection is far closer to 0% than 100%,. It's really bad and the very nature of this tech makes it impossible to be good.

As someone working in this field, it is simply not closer to 0%

People keep using these "gotcha" examples and never actually look at the stats for it. I get it, there are some terrible detectors out there, and of course they are the free ones :)

https://edintegrity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s4097...

GPTZero was correct in most scenarios where they used basic prompts, and only had one false positive.

We did a comparison of hand reviewed 3,000 9-12th grade assignments and found that GPTZero holds up really well.

In the same way that plagiarism detectors need a process for review, your educational institution needs the same for AI detection. Students shouldn't be immediately punished, but instead it should be reviewed, and then an appropriate decision made by a person.

> https://edintegrity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s4097...

> GPTZero was correct in most scenarios where they used basic prompts, and only had one false positive.

One false positive out of only "five human-written samples", unless I'm misreading.

Say 50 papers are checked, with 5 being generated by AI. By the rates of GPTZero in the paper, 3 AI-generated papers would be correctly flagged and 9 human-written papers would incorrectly flagged. Meaning a flagged paper is only 25% likely to actually be AI-generated.

Realistically the sample size in the paper is just far too small to make any real conclusion one way or another, but I think people fail to appreciate the difference between false positive rate and false discovery rate.

> How does any Wordpress developer know they are not going to be next? Or all of the third party plugin providers? Or theme makers? All of them heavily use Wordpress branding in their services, few contribute to the open source.

Easy, just don't be too successful.

So why should someone use WordPress, knowing one person with enormous conflicts of interest determines which companies are allowed to host it?

WordPress has always had a phenomenal admin editing experience relative to what else existed. That on top of a dogmatic adherence to backwards compatibility made the free (and paid) theme/plugin ecosystem thrive.