danlitt

15 ms·

271.
by danlitt 2y ago
Yeah, I read it. That just says what they want to do, and nothing about why it's a good idea. You would have to have your brain plugged in upside-down to even consider using an LLM to "enhance policymaking".
272.
by danlitt 2y ago
This is not accurate, and it would not. As much as I would like it to be the case, you are not free to use public internet content for arbitrary purposes. In general (as you probably know), you rely on the idea that a court would consider y
273.
by danlitt 2y ago
Is there really anyone who thinks this is a good idea? AI systems routinely spit out false information. Why would a system like that be anywhere near a Government? Perhaps (optimistically) this is just a credibility-grab from Anthropic, wit
274.
by danlitt 2y ago
Well, I guess what I mean is if the situation is as I describe in my previous comment, then anyone who did have the money to fight it would be a shoe-in. It's a much stronger case than, for example, the ongoing lawsuits by Matthew Bu
275.
by danlitt 2y ago
> The way I see it, AI is not a robot and doesn't need to look at robots.txt I don't think you are seeing it very clearly then. Your secretary can also be a robot. What do you think an AI is if not a robot?? It doesn't &qu
276.
by danlitt 2y ago
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. If Perplexity is actually doing something with your article in-band (e.g. downloading it, processing it, and present that processed article to the user) then they're just breaking the law. I&#x2
277.
by danlitt 2y ago
Why?! The point of eink is that it's slow refresh.