I van totally believe that it detects AI generated content 99% of the time, that’s trivial. What I really wanna know is the false positive rate. If I write a program that flags everything, it’d have a 100% hit rate. It’d also however have a crazy high false positive rate.

Curved screens are often significantly harder (and more expensive, even at independent shops) to replace than standard flat screens.

It’s not just random jitter, it also likely adds context, including the device you’re using, other recent queries, and your relative location (like what state you’re in).

I don’t work for Google, but I am somewhat close to a major AI product, and it’s pretty much the industry standard to give some contextual info to the model in addition to your query. It’s also generally not “one model”, but a set of models run in sequence— with the LLM (think chatGPT) only employed at the end to generate a paragraph from a conclusion and evidence found by a previous model.

Autopilot maintains altitude and bearing between waypoints in the sky, and in some (ideal) situations can automatically land the aircraft. In terms of piloting an aircraft, it can handle the middle of the journey entirely autonomously, and even sometimes the end (landing).

Autopilot (the Telsa feature) is not rated to drive the car autonomously, requires constant human supervision, and can automatically disengage at any time. Despite being sold as an “autonomous driver”, it cannot function as one, like autopilot on a plane can. It is clearly using the autopilot feature of an aircraft to imply that the car can pilot itself through at least the middle of the journey without direct supervision (which it can’t). That is misrepresentation.

Investigate it? The dude literally named it “autopilot”, what is there to investigate, they market this explicitly in their advertising.

proceeds to explicitly name 10 different biases back to back, requiring that the agent adheres to them

“We just want an unbiased AI guys!”

That’s for historians and professional researchers. It may not sway the field at large, but it’s still a huge risk to public opinion. I shudder to think of the propaganda implications for rewriting history in a near indistinguishable way.

No, he’s right.

Everyone seems to be missing the point of the external display. It’s to keep you somewhat tethered to the real world, not to look super impressive. It gives people around you enough information to know if they can see you, and if they are looking at you, that’s it’s purpose. And it does that really well from what I’ve seen. Does it look a little weird? Sure, but it’s doing what it was designed to do.

Or go club anyway, for free. Just went to one with no cover, and didn’t drink anything. They actually had a raffle I did pay for, but I ended up winning. So technically, I profited 🤔

They stormed the most secure building in our country with the express purpose of stealing control of our government while openly shouting they wanted to hang the VP and members of congress, with the gallows they brought.

If that isn’t the textbook example of seditious treason, what is? They should have the book thrown at them. To do any less is to endorse and encourage this behavior.

Regulate does not equal stop, or even really slow for that manner. There are a number of measures we can mandate that wouldn’t slow any real research, but that would curtail malicious activity, like mandating some form of detection research to go alongside models, or pushing for better watermarking technology for genuine content.

The feds should claw that money back. I’m sure they intended for this money to go back into the community, and this is borderline fraud.

No, they messed up. Regardless of user count, and economic context, there is a limit to how fast you can grow a company. Going beyond that limit means that you’re diluting internal company knowledge so much that everyone just ends up doing their own thing— it’s chaos. Quality control, standards, procedures, etc go out the window. You also loose your ability to create accurate, data-backed plans with a high degree of confidence the farther you get from where you are now. You can predict the impact of a few new hires pretty easily, but hundreds, when your current team is only a couple hundred? You simply can’t forecast what holes you are creating, and challenges you will encounter with that many new people (specifically, that high of a growth percentage) in that short a time period. Growing that fast is incredibly risky, and in almost all cases, a terrible business decision. I’ve worked for SEVERAL companies that have worked this way, and it always destroys the company from the inside out.

If you want confirmation, just look at their product offering. Discord has consistently come out with features that no one has been asking for in a desperate attempt to monetize their platform, while for some reason continuing to hire like crazy (I.E., spending shit tons of money). Instead of working on their core product, and finding a way to monetize that. I can (and do) pay for all the messaging platforms I use out of principle, and I would happily pay more if their platform were more reliable. They could easily gate features in a way that generates them money, but instead of doing that, they let the core platform stagnate and add all this paid crap no one wants, of course they aren’t making money. This is a direct result of their company having a huge percentage of employees that do not fundamentally understand the product, because they hired too fast and diluted their internal knowledge.

It was never a scam, it was always a successful money laundering operation for the rich while covid had all the real galleries closed. It did exactly what it said on the tin. It’s just unfortunate that some people thought it was a real economy to begin with. Either way, good riddance.

Yes, that was what I was getting at. Not having true random is one thing, I understand (and like) that implementation. Apple has been doing it since the first few iPods. But Spotify “shuffle” isn’t near even, it is exactly even, as in “if you shuffle play this playlist twice two days in a row, it will play the exact same order”. Which is why people are complaining about Spotify specifically.

The problem isn’t that their random is biased or has rules, the is that it is entirely deterministic, to the point where it will play the same exact songs, in the same exact order for days. It’s as if shuffle just activates a hidden “shuffle” playlist that only updates once a week.

No chat app needs a desktop App, they need a WEB app. Generally I’m against them, but in this case it makes sense. It makes cross platform trivial, and you would never really need to use a messaging app offline anyway, browser APIs have come a LONG way. It’s also Google’s core competency. So yes, I believe they 100% have the tools if they wanted to try.

As for integration, my point is: why would Apple bother integrating with Google’s suggestions? Google has a track record of abandoning standards and ideas at the drop of a hat. Why on earth would Apple spend time, money, and engineering talent on something that’s likely to become abandonware in 2-4 years time? That’s also assuming it’s a GOOD standard, most of the previous attempts had fatal flaws that made the product dead on arrival. If Google had something compelling, and gave us a reason to believe it would be around for more than a few years, I’m sure adoption would go through the roof, and Apple would want to integrate— Because it would now benefit them, they would be getting something out of the deal; More features, an established user base, etc.

Regardless, my point still stands. The reason folks on Andriod are hopping around between different chat apps every few years is because Google refuses to create a robust chat app, and commit to it. Apple has power in this space because Google has refused to seriously, honestly try. If Google had a GOOD chat app, and a track record to prove it’s going to stick around, Apple would be much more open to integrating with another ecosystem, because it would be beneficial for them to do so.

I am fully in the Apple ecosystem, including my phone, work laptop, personal laptop, and an Apple watch. I pretty much exclusively use telegram, and sometimes Discord, not iMessage— and that’s not a niche or unpopular opinion in my experience either. This is absolutely because Google can’t stick with one app or product long enough to gain any market share. Each time they have tried, it’s lasted barely a year or so before they killed it.