I think there’s an important semantic difference between worse performance and correctness. Tools, like AI, can underperform when compared to humans and still be very useful and worth investing into, but that’s only as long as they perform correctly.

The neat part is that we can’t even claim that they’re little mistakes or that there’s few of them.

That’s such a bad argument too. The whole point of technology is to help perfect the output of humans. Why would we buy technology that is known to not do that

It already exists, lots of institutions people work with know way more than just their age. They could really provide an anonymous way of validating someone’s age without divulging their identity. This can also be done in such a way that the verification provider doesn’t know the requester either so they don’t have a way of tracking user habits

This isn’t surprising, 20% of the world’s supply of literally anything would have profound impacts with how tightly coupled the world supply chain is. When that resource is a basic need such as petrol, things tend to become dramatic quite quicly

Not for me. Looks like CNN it’s not free everywhere. Interesting.

Here you go

my experience with iCloud is pretty bad. I worked in a startup at some point which was giving Macs to employees and sort of expected them to figure it out. We had a few people quit and that’s when we figured out that the macs became shiny useless things since we didn’t have access to wipe the associated account and Apple didn’t help in any way. So, from my experience, this is a horrible “feature”.

Now i find out that it’s even worse and it gives 3rd parties means to harass you… I really think that avoiding theft comes at a far to high a price

Sure. My point was that exposing someone to scams like social engineering is really really bad and far less desirable than keeping an open line of communication for a purchase

Is it though? The author of this article knows what they’re doing, but a regular person would probably not be as relaxed with some of the threats. I didn’t see this in the article, how does the thief have the ability to contact the victim?

This doesn’t mean that there are reddit comments suggesting putting glue on pizza or even eating glue. It just means that the implementation of Google’s LLM is half baked and built it’s model in a weird way.

Google AI suggested you put glue on your pizza because a troll said it on Reddit once…

Genuine question: do you know that’s what happened? This type of implementation can suggest things like this without it having to be in the training data in that format.

Yes, thank you! I think this should be written in capitals somewhere so that people could understand it quicker. The answers are not wrong or right on purpose. LLMs don’t have any way of distinguishing between the two.

it’s funny how the conventional wisdom at the end of the last decade was that slack was preferred over other simpler/free alternatives because of its UX. People were hailing it for how simple and intuitive it was to use, etc.

5, 6 years later, it has become a bloated piece of crap riddled with bugs. And the UI changes which come unannounced… it should be a criminal offense to change UI through automated updates.

Anyway, here we are, companies have handed their data to this monster and we’ll see how they react when the data gets misused. Hopefully that would be the beginning of the end for it

Is it a scam? How does it work?

There is no such thing as pure capitalism.