You can be bad at writing with or without AI.

> all other Goncourt finalists

Like it or not, people expect significant AI-use to be disclosed. When only human is credited, they feel cheated.

Excellent use of AI? Disclose it and avoid the fuss.

Do you disclose the use of a typewriter? Or word processor app with auto-complete and spelling/usage checkers?

No because people don't care. Basically you have to deal with the expectations of your readers when you try to sell a book.

Sure, and expectations were met here by the readers[0]. Otherwise there would have been no award in the first place. It's just this random group with an axe to grind that's trying to stir up trouble.

[0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_du_roman_Fnac

> You sit on chairs everyday where you don't give a shit how they were created.

I am dumb on chair making, as the average chair user. I wouldn't trust myself building a commercial-grade chair.

If you are as dumb with software as I am with chair making, you should refrain from building software for others. This is regardless of LLM.

> tyranny

Previous comment was about people trying to watch football paying a few euros to shady business, who knows where that money lands, rather than the official offer from people who spent a lot to get the rights to broadcast.

I really don't like the implementation but I wouldn't call that tyranny. Blocking archive is much more concerning.

It's worth considering that the Spanish football league has successfully lobbied to implement widespread Cloudflare IP blocks during matches that affect websites totally unrelated to football (or to any kind of piracy). I don't watch football at all, but when there are matches I often find my normal work or home browsing activity disrupted by the blocks and have to turn on the VPN.

Considering this, I strongly believe that the ethical way to watch football in Spain is piracy. People who watch it legally are funding a mafia-like organization that harms society.

There is no ethical way to watch football. It's always funding a (or multiple) mafia-like organization.

Authorities tried to work with that provider but it required a process that doesn't scale to live events. They do not want to preemptively disallow abuses on their platform. If you leverage their shared IPs to expose your service, your traffic cannot be distinguished from abuses by traffic filtering solutions. I think they provide BYOIP, if you think your service is important enough to justify not being mixed with non-legit things. Or you can rework your architecture, this provider is not the full web.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it and would vote against IP-filtering if I was asked that specific question. I don't consider it tyrannical. Criteria for blocking IPs is clear and limited, even if blocking IPs is dumb. VPN are allowed.

Oh no! They won't implement censorship without a court decision? How tragic!

Blocking illegal football streaming is not censorship.

Of course it's censorship. It's the government blocking certain content from the internet, without a trial. How do you define censorship?

By this logic removing CSAM also is censorship. This definition of censorship is valid but it doesn't convey much moral value. Removing some content, even without a trial, can be a good thing.

Yes it's censorship.

> Blocking archive is much more concerning.

Yes. That is an example of the tyranny I speak of.

It's escalated to tyranny - blocking half the internet - in an alleged attempt to block petty football piracy. If your country installed cameras everywhere to "deter kidnapping" wouldn't you feel that was tyrannical?

Are you seriously putting Balzac and Spiderman on the same level to try to ridicule thoughts?

Ad hominem.

They are both quotes that people say things like "they say" to imply someone of import said it to give it credence and truth to it but were in fact from fictional sources.

Exact same pattern - take it as an ad hominem all you want.

> How do you test and monitor outbound access against program that adapts itself to get around things?

Literally what the industry has been doing since public networking is a thing. Adapt yourself.

Many links are available in the article, including one to theverge.

It could be limited to specific batch(es).

So in other words, they're not withdrawing the toothbrush from sale.

It has been removed from their website and Amazon listings, and at least some specific retailers in France are also withdrawing it from sale.

Borrowing the work of others to replace them without crediting is the model of current AI companies.

They just used that occurrence as a PR stunt but it isn't worse than the others done at scale every second.

With an on premise device, the game is already lost. They may plant a separate mic device inside the TV, or elsewhere. Rooted TV doesn't really impact BnB security model.