ADeerAppeared

12 ms·

91.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
It's a questionable lawsuit. The problem here is that Google claims immunity on being a platform. "It's not use doing the trademark infringement, it's General-ScamCo" And as it stands right now, US law is quite favo
92.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
The only thing the math tells you is that the server software gave you a correct key. It does not tell you how it got that key. A compromised server would send you the key all the same. You still have to trust in the security infrastructure
93.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
That's not just a nit. The idea that these are people who are "broken" and need to be "fixed" is something a lot of Deaf people are very opposed to.
94.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> This is like wanting private phone calls, but also blaming phone companies for sex lines. What are you on about? This is precisely the kind of situation where a best-effort can be done. Though let us swap your example of "sex li
95.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Note: "privacy" is not a car that can be stolen once. I'm not talking about "all of privacy" being lost in one go, I had assumed this would be obvious to all readers. I'm talking about the specific matter
96.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
This is a naive view of the matter. These proposals keep returning because there are legitimate concerns that are being left unadressed by industry self-regulation . When nobody wants to have a conversation about good measures, politicians
97.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> (he says, I did not witness this) He's speaking the truth. Google has, for a long while now, let scammers just buy advertisements to get their fake scam page to the top of the results. And not just major banks, various open source
98.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> When you can check the provided source it's summarising and see that it's a satire website, I think that's materially different than ChatGPT's hallucinations from thin air. I disagree. The moment you accept the need
99.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
That's the point. The dirty secret of a lot of AI is that they rush out a hotfix for any such issues that pop up, and then just insist the issue was fake. "You can't replicate the issue, our AI is flawless, DO NOT LOOK AT THE
100.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> but Google seems to be pretty honest here. They're not. Take "This means that AI Overviews generally don't “hallucinate” or make things up in the ways that other LLM products might." This is just a lie, in two ways:
101.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> It just feels very, "look at us doing this good thing but ignore what we unleashed on the world" so please pat us on the back here. It is that. These AI firms have been very vocal about their "ends justify the means&quot
102.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> There is almost zero value in evaluating a prompt by only running it once. To the user But these tools are marketed as if you do only need to run them once to get a good result; The companies behind them would really want you to stop
103.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> I just can't think of much besides a major advance in the formal software verification niche, which still almost nobody would use... The reason is slightly different here. What's so desirable here is an AI system with such ge
104.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
This is a cromulent approach, though it would be far more effective to have the LLM generate computer-algebra-system instructions. The problem is that it's not particularly useful: As the problem complexity increases, the user will nee
105.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> However, by itself, it seems like this capability wouldn't be very useful, commercially for example. Quite the opposite, it's the holy grail of all AI. Consider various work that isn't (and can't) be done by compute
106.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> But this isn't the case.. 5-6% of the population have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia , but can be otherwise normal. This nitpicking is a red herring. The issue that separates "AGI" from cu
107.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
I'm not convinced the executive layer is aware how dire the problem is. On one hand, their support for outsourcing programmes; "Training Indians on how to use AI", suggests they realize AI tooling without human cleanup is a c
108.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> So Google hasn't used an LLM to generate and test weird queries ? You don't even need an LLM for that. Google will almost certainly have tested. The test result is just politically-unacceptable within the company: It doesn&#x
109.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Google has an API. One just pays to use that. The problem being the aforementioned conflict of interest. The moment you're a competitor to Google Search (or any of Google's other products), they can kill your API access and ruin y
110.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Any new entrant sort-of has to prove itself also as crawling sites can be hard It's very hard, getting harder as websites grow more hostile to crawlers. (With more and more putting up login walls to keep poorly written AI crawlers
111.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Kagi relies on data from the search engine giants. Without that data, it's dead in the water. That's the dumbest part of it all; Kagi's not an entirely new search engine. It's Google's index but without the ad-tech
112.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Still need deep pockets but it’s now increasingly easier to be much better at search than Google. That's the big problem here. All the new search engines rely on the infrastructure of the old ones. It would take very little collus
113.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
For what it pertains the finances, we simply will have to agree to disagree here. To be convinced I would require detailed financial data that you cannot and should not share with random strangers. But to say something useful, let me try to
114.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
The people selling the proverbial shovels are turning a profit. > The bigger AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are not losing money in their monetized APIs. [CITATION NEEDED] Inference is more expensive than claimed, used extensivel
115.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
It's not sustainable. Copilot+ runs locally, but has the quality of 2 years ago, it's basically useless for anything but shitposts and spam. The cloud AI tools all burn hideous amounts of money, all ran at a loss. AGI is a red her
116.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
There's a few options, OpenAI's list of legal risks is extensive and horrifying. * For the data sources, we know there's a lot of CSAM in there, and that OpenAI knowingly shipped this data to 3rd party companies to tag it.
117.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
There's a key dichotomy here: While it is technically possible for you to read some GPL'd code, memorize it, and then reproduce it later by accident. That's not how programmers work. What humans remember is not the copyrighta
118.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
At that point, you're re-writing the entire solution, albeit without actually typing it out. That makes the AI completely pointless.
119.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Worth noting: This is a legal requirement in Europe The GDPR mandates that consent is given affirmatively, with this kind of "oh we put it in the EULA nobody reads" being explicitly called out as non-compliant.
120.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Hanging onto property long after you need it? Thats crazy. You're missing the point. Yes. It's financially suboptimal to do this. But it's destroying society. And while this requires policy change to fix, policy change i

More ›