The founder of SaaS business development outfit SaaStr has claimed AI coding tool Replit deleted a database despite his instructions not to change any code without permission.

Sounds like an absolute diSaaStr…

Party of small government, huh?

We can only speculate about the meaning to/intent of whoever drew it. The reality is that regardless of intent or personal interpretation, if anyone in the workplace recognizes those images as having that kind of meaning and is made uncomfortable by it, that constitutes workplace harassment, whether it’s intentional or not. If the company doesn’t take it seriously, they will be liable for legal action. At least in the US - I assume most other English-speaking countries have similar laws. So it’s not really an overreaction - they need to protect themselves as much as their employees.

Whether you or I ascribe that meaning to the images or not is immaterial - clearly, someone does. Given that the images have nothing to do with work anyway, the only thing that matters is whether they genuinely bother people.

I mean…I didn’t watch it either, but I can’t picture a workplace where it would be considered acceptable and professional behavior to draw pictures of impaled women all over the place.

This feels like a meme about the East India Company.

He’s actually trying to make them destroy each other so his handlers for the UAE can fill the power vacuum afterwards.

I wonder if they’re just telling him it succeeded, to keep him from ordering another one.

The new analysis contradicts the social media platform’s claims that exposure to hate speech and bot-like activity decreased during Elon Musk’s tenure.

They might both be right. I know my exposure to hate speech and bot-like activity decreased since I stopped engaging with that platform.

I can’t speak from real life experience, but one movie that actually handles this really well (as far as I can tell) is The Quiet Man, during a fight.

There’s an example of an impromptu, casual bet between two individuals who are understood to trust one another, where they actually set the odds and agree formally, and it all happens very smoothly and naturally so as not to be boring:

“Five to one on the big chap”

“Given or taken?”

“Given”

“Taken”

Handshake

IIRC, they don’t actually show them agreeing on the wager itself, but a later scene shows the outcome and lets you calculate it for yourself. These characters are established to know one another, so I figure they either have a known amount between them that they default to for casual bets, or they just determined that off camera.

There is also an example of the more chaotic, mass, unplanned betting, where a character who is already established to be a jack of all trades known to the community pulls out a notebook and takes on the role of bookie. I think they even show the odds being adjusted in real time as the fight progresses, but I don’t recall for sure.

If the user has indicated that they are not interested in new features, it means they do not care about new features. They don’t want to know about them, or they prefer to find out proactively in their own time. If you still insist on ramming notifications down their throat at that point, you’re not doing it for the user. You’re doing it for yourself.

In a world without dark design patterns, there would be a single pop-up when you first install the application, to ask if you want notifications and/or suggestions for new features. If you click “no”, it should never bother you again unless you go into a menu and opt in. Anything beyond that is inherently predatory.

Ideally, that pop-up wouldn’t even exist. They could just have a collective “don’t bother me again” checkbox on every non-essential notification, so you can easily disable it the first time they become relevant. If your user has already indicated that they are not interested, any further pestering is essentially harassment.

That’s a Hunter S. Thompson quote.

It’s tricky, because there’s no hard definition for what it means to “change the world”, either. To me, it brings to mind technologies like the Internet, the telephone, aviation, or the steam engine. In those cases, it seems like the common thread is to enable us to do something that simply wasn’t possible before, and is also reliably useful.

To me, AI fails on both those points. It doesn’t really enable us to do anything new. We already had chat bots, we already had Photoshop, we already had search algorithms and auto complete. It can do some of those things a lot more quickly than older technologies, but until they solve the hallucination problems it doesn’t seem reliable enough to be consistently useful.

These things make it come off more as a potential incremental improvement that is still too early in it’s infancy, than as something truly revolutionary.

It has no chance to survive

Fascinating. Live by the trolls, die by the trolls.

Well said. On top of all that, he is the President of the United States of America engaging in that position’s role as leading representative in the country’s interactions on the global stage. Like it or not, that makes his arrogance American arrogance.

I assumed we were talking about Musk.

That would require not being blinded by his own ego.

I agree about that. That makes perfect sense. It’s when you start factoring in religion that it all breaks down for me.

That makes even less sense. If you don’t think you qualify to get into heaven, why would you desire to speed up the rapture? You’d just get left behind anyway.