orclev

Quora was always that site where you'd search for something on Google, see it show up near the top of the results and you'd just instantly skip over it because you already knew whatever it said was a waste of time unless you were looking for a laugh. Half the time the answers would literally be people messing with the person asking the question, and the other half of the time the person asking the question would be the one joking around.

While that is true this news doesn't actually have anything to do with gaming. This was Nvidia telling other corporations that they're going to price gouge an extra 15% for server GPUs (ironically making cloud gaming potentially that much more expensive).

It's the exact same problem you run into on any open or semi-open market but the outcome for anything with a good user review system will be the same. Look at Steam where asset flips and low quality clones flooded the store but 99% of them barely get a handful of sales if any. Instead all the money goes towards the games with actual fun content. People recognize low quality and low effort slop and AI reeks of it.

The only thing flooding markets with slop does is it makes it harder for the small gems to get discovered. Some of them still will, they happen to catch the eye of just the right person and spread through word of mouth, and the big companies will just shovel heaps of money into advertising, but it makes life miserable for the little guy trying to make a name for themselves.

I mean it kind of already does this accidentally, just look for em dash and/or emojis sprinkled all over the document and you can be pretty certain that it was AI generated.

The other thing I'm seeing here is that this will only be effective for large chunks of text, if you're dealing with small snippets interspersed with human generated content there will be enough statistical noise to make classification hard without introducing a bunch of false positives and negatives.

It would make a good second (or third) layer of defense. The problem with it is that it's reactive not proactive, so you need to download the ad first before it can decide to block it or not. URL blacklists are the superior option, but hard to maintain. The ideal setup would be a URL blacklist that's automatically updated on the fly by an AI classifier so anything that slips through the blacklist gets ban hammered by the AI and added to the blacklist to prevent future wasted bandwidth. If the blacklist updates were shared the same way some of the ad blockers do currently it could be incredibly effective as it would be essentially distributed realtime ad blocking.

Eh, maybe. First for existing content it makes no difference, the creator already got paid to read the ad so whether you skip it or not doesn't change the money that's already in their account. The argument would be if people are regularly skipping the sponsored ads then companies might stop offering sponsorships. Considering this is currently limited to premium customers which a) tend to be the minority, b) still need to manually trigger a fast forward to skip the ad, and c) would likely fast forward through it anyway because they've already shown they're willing to pay money to avoid ads, I don't think this will actually make much difference. Worst case scenario it drives down the amount being offered for sponsorships a little.

The content creator won't care but the sponsors might. YouTube has a similar system that skips over "commonly skipped segments" when you're fast forwarding. In practice it just means you skip past the section of the video where whoever it is reads the sponsors ad copy. It would have gotten skipped anyway, this feature just saves you a few seconds of putzing around trying to find the exact spot where the ad ends.

It doesn't have a long tail, that's the wheel. If you look the same line shows up at the front of the hamster as well.

So the company made their game marginally less shit which caused their revenue to dip very slightly and the stock markets reaction was "SELL!!!!!1!!!ONE!!!!!! THEY'RE GOING UNDER!!!". This is why we can't have nice things.

It's to feed the algorithms and get more views. They get paid based on the number of views a video gets. The higher the algorithm promotes a video, the more views they get. Getting lots of comments on a video causes the algorithm to promote it more. It costs the spammers almost nothing to shit out a quick thirst trap video but they need to get enough views to recoup that cost which means there is a minimum number of views they need to break even. It's not a huge number as far as these platforms go, but it's also not nothing so anything they can do to encourage more views is mandatory for them.

Setting aside the fact this was definitely not unprompted, social engineering might be the one thing AI is actually better at than a human. That is after all one of the biggest uses for bots for a while now by way of spam bots trying to social engineer people into various activities.

Unfortunately there are very few actual CGM brands available. There are a bunch of different CGMs, but most of them are just relabels of other units, almost all of which are made by either Dexcom or Abbott. Even more unfortunately in my experience they wildly exaggerate the accuracy and lifetime of the units. Most claim an accuracy of +/- 20% which is pathetic for 14 days, but you're lucky if it maintains even that terrible level of accuracy for half that time.

In my case I'm horrendously allergic to the adhesive that Dexcom uses on their units, so I can't even use half the CGMs on the market, and I gave up on Abbott after their units started to struggle to even make it 48 hours without being off by more than 50 mg/dl.