Yeah, like we haven't been through multiple "generational" recessions.
At this point I feel like I've spent more time alive during recessions than not, so what's one more for the pile - especially if it means getting to watch the AI bros go bankrupt.
I agree. This article did a great job at making me sympathetic to an LLM agent.
Given what looks to be a simple task with a tight deadline, but is actually rendered almost impossible by bottlenecks the people who gave the task didn't forsee - and then getting blamed for not being able to complete the task.
Sounds like a day at my old job.
I personally dislike LLMs for their environmental impact and corrosiveness towards human culture, and I still think this was an unfair test. It had essentially no access to the budget it was supposed to have available due to API bugs, and was blocked from any form of advertising except spam marketing that its creators punished it for using. The fuck was it meant to do, shit money out from its arse?
Possibility? I think it'd be easier to point out which CEOs weren't making AI decisions based on discussions with chatbots.
I can think of a couple of rules that could prevent a lot of the more blatant cheating:
All computer generated coursework must have some form of change tracking enabled, thus the assessor can see the way the essay was written.
All computer generated coursework must come with an accompanying oral assessment where the student has to discuss their work and research methodology.
The former would make it difficult to copy directly from ChatGPT, as the lack of any editing would leave an obvious fingerprint
... And passing the latter would require a level of understanding that would be difficult to replicate if you hadn't done the research yourself.
Its terrible how inconvenient shops have made it nowadays to leave if you haven't bought anything.
Some shops you've got to walk the entire loop around, some shops you've got to awkwardly squeeze through the till queues, and some you have get staff to let you out.
Its frankly ridiculous. I'm thankful for shops that don't block off their exit. Requires more trust in shoppers, but that trust is appreciated and keeps me wanting to come back in the future.
No shit. A valution of 100x more than yearly revenue (never mind profits) should never have existed in the first place, and was most certainly a pump and dump.
Anyone who actually thought the stock price was going up from there was delusional.
Of course. Flock always works correctly, even when it causes innocent people to get harmed.
Its a spying tool first and foremost, the crime solving part is just a half-arsed afterthought justification.
And so they should be.
Exactly what other use would someone have out in public for a pair of glasses that silently and stealthily record the world around them on a whim?
Google was literally bashed for exactly this same reason with the Glass. Its not that people dislike the idea of portable recordings, that's what we have action cams for - it's the desperate attempt to conceal a recording device into glasses.
The market is basically only vloggers and perverts, and the vloggers are perfectly content with wearing way less creepy action cams.
Ah yes, experience a <15 second loading buffer...
Or watch potentially multiple entire minute long, unskippable adverts.
Honestly part of me has considered paying for YouTube premium - but aside from not having to fight off ADs, I don't care about the other perks, and am more than happy to just give to the creators directly without Google getting a cut.
Haha MicroSlop getting a taste of their own data-harvesting medicine at the hand of Anthropic and complaining about it is rich.
Guess they don't like it when the eggs on their face haha
A regular search engine just points to outside websites. But AI overviews generate "independent, new, and substantive statements" by evaluating and combining content from various third-party sites. And only Google can check those statements, the court said, "at least by comparing the underlying third-party websites with its own statements based on them."
Honestly this is all the reasoning you need to infer that Google should be liable. Google alone has editorial control over the summary their AI generates, not the outside sources used to generate these statements, ergo Google should be held liable for that.
At the hearing, Google argued that users could check the linked sources themselves to verify whether the AI summary was correct. Users generally knew "that information generated with AI should not be blindly trusted," the company claimed.
... And you know that's true when the best Google could muster as a defence is to say that people shouldn't be blindly trusting the AI, which ironically means even Google thinks their AI is full of shit.
But unfortunately for Google, not only does the court not buy that defence, but it would appear that's contrary to how most people use the feature.
The ruling may also have international reach, according to the court.
I seriously hope so. Its about time companies started taking proper liability for the actions of their LLMs.
Well that's a great incentive for clickbait content - cause now it won't matter if you can keep people watching after you've reeled them in.
You'd think this would be against YouTube's own best interest, considering they want to keep you watching, and people don't often like watching that kind of clickbait-farm slop...
Or maybe I and the people I know are in the minority, and a lot of people just watch it whether they like it or not, which would be disappointing to hear.