Aatube

joined 3 years ago
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

yeah, my point is that was never the concern of such people

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (13 children)

no, because their ad blocker is still working

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Gadget Review almost certainly uses LLMs to generate their articles.

(dear mods: this is what i meant to put as the report reason before clicking the wrong button, sorry)

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that's why the law shouldn't apply to just generation. as long as something is delivered (even if over the internet) to EU places, then the EU law mandating AI labels applies.

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

that iirc lasted just some dozen minutes after initially being listed. that day it closed at $160. it's the closing price that matters

and even if we compare against that, that's just <42% off.

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

70% off

doesn’t seem to be true? lowest recently was 132.15 which is less than 23% off the peak of 170.86. and that wasn’t even a closing price; by the day’s end it was back above 135 and the stock has never closed below 135.

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

Link: “Like guarantees of future returns, this page doesn’t exist.”

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

this article sounds like AI too, i am going crazy

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

(the colors are whether and how much the stock rose, not credit rating)

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

yahoo news is not a news source but a site that republishes articles from other websites. you can tell from the top here that this is the exactly same article from Gadget Review

apparently the 404media part is just a part of the article where it cites previous incidents. so then we don’t even have a source for the meat of the article save a random X thread.

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

that’s not a summary; that’s the first paragraphs of the article

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

(CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0, the non–open-source part here being NC)

1
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
 

... was not on my bingo card. Remember "Hour of Code"? That was Code.org.

Branded animation: "Hour of Code is now the Hour of AI"

 

I draw the line at when a third party internet-connected service is doing validation of ID. Let’s be honest though, I strongly believe such a thing isn’t possible on a FOSS operating system environment unless they could control what was bootable on the device at a firmware level, enforce signatures to ensure that you couldn’t boot something unrestricted, remove the ability to be root, and block LD_PRELOAD so signals couldn’t be faked. There’s probably more ways to circumvent that.

What I’m trying to say is real ID verification on Linux would be awfully hard to implement, and I guarantee you, nobody would put up with it. They’d fork to a version that doesn’t have it immediately as a protest. Right now, we’re considering implementing something akin to the date pickers that were ubiquitous when signing up for internet services in the early 2000s where it’s just an honor system.

view more: next ›