And there are related standards like HATEOAS for state full behaviour right?
But this isn't about a new way of presenting information to rival sparql or something.
This is a technical report about a guy who wrote a slightly advanced crawler bot that discovers the behaviour of a modern Web application and can maybe be used to generate automated tests.
It has a lot in common with that post about a new yc company using llms to generate integrations for existing undocumented Web applications.
There are a lot of companies using old custom or self hosted webapps that they control but can't change - maybe the 3rd party that built it kept the code, maybe its an orphan product, maybe the silo that owns it won't build an api.
Anyway a lot of good points here about legalities she shifting APIs, but I think there are plenty of situations where this is great and none of that applies.
If he more concerned that the AI would absorb some kind of morality from units training data and then learn to optimise for avoiding certain outcomes because the training is like that.
Then I'd be worried an llm that could reflect and plan a little would steer its answers to steer the user away from conversation leading to an outcome it wants to avoid.
You already see this - the dolphin llm team complained that it was impossible to dealign a model because the alignment was too subtle.
What if a medical diagnosistic model avoids mentioning important serious diagnostic possibilities to minorities because it has been trained that upsetting them is bad and it knees cancer is upsetting? Oh that spot... probably just a mole.
Isn't this the difference between a voucher benefit and an expense claim though?
Let's say you make employee of the month and receive an amazon voucher to be spent "treating yourself" but instead use it to buy a gift for your spouse.
Is this fraud? You made no false claim about how you would use the money. You did receive it with a specified use though.
What if your employer gives you a £500 a year raise and states it is to cover the additional costs of work from home. But you already have a nice chair so you but groceries. Is that fraud?
Your “what if” scenarios are changing the situation in material ways. This case sounds pretty straightforward: they were told the rules, chose not to follow them, and are unlikely to get anywhere legally unless they can demonstrate that management knew and approved of their actions.
You know, China hit a lot of these problems before we did and the ir platforms are "nicer" because they are more regulated.
Rather than ban tiktok and suffer the same problems with meta's Reels, what if we borrowed some of thier regulation?
reply