bulder

A reasonable interpretation would be that they had a previous process that eliminated delivery latency and required no manual manpower for responding, so changing it has been done to induce artificial friction, against the intent of the license.

Not that the intent of a license can be enforced.

Saying that the average person can't write good documentation or copy means nothing when the LLMs can't write good documentation or copy either. I'd rather have crappy human written docs than the LLM word salad. For example,

> A background watcher reads the foreground app's identifier once per second; when it changes, the overlay you authored for that app is layered on top of the device's global bindings, with per-app entries winning and any unlisted button falling through to the global map.

as is in the documentation right now could have just read

> Your device will automatically use app-specific keybinds when a given app is in focus.

So much of the documentation copy especially is typical of the ways LLMs leak implementation instructions into their written copy.

Personally, "AI wrote a driver" and "AI rebottled an existing solution and sold it as Dr. Claude's Miracle Driver" are semantically very different claims to be making in the public square. If you're only making it to use by yourself sure they might behave similarly, but when you're doing it for a public audience people will want to know if you're fibbing with your verbiage.

Being signed into Google doesn't really figure into Cloudflare's systems at all, haven't for years. They replaced ReCaptcha ages ago.

The code for expert systems and especially decision trees can be audited. How do you audit a language model's decisions when it could have had hidden trigger phrases that subtly influence its reasoning baked into it?

Because they use a commercial service (AT Internet) for analytics and visitor tracking as stated in their cookies policy and cookie inventory. This information is readily available through the cookie banner.

If it was overtrained on academic papers it'd reiterate the point multiple times for structure. Instead, it's burying the lede seemingly just to pad.

The stigma surrounding AI use will get worse if... People know AI is being used? Sorry how does maintaining heightened paranoia by omitting clear signals help exactly?

The figures used don't count browser users at all, signed in or not

Presumably it'll either mean selling "agent seats", or billing seats for every started hour of use. With a monthly minimum, of course.

Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity that explicitly financializes that work's benefits? Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity whose entire business model is making sure they sit as a gatekeeper between your free work and others who would benefit from your work?

For some it's demoralizing to know that your work will be broken down and atomized into language model mush, and the credit will go to the computer.

The downside, as stated in the message, is implicitly supporting the LLM data ingestation pipeline by providing fresh content. It's not a direct harm in itself, but feels very tragedy of the commonsy

Generally when I read a literal genie story, the message isn't 'well it was reasonable of the genie to do this'. It's more commonly either a morality tale of the person being wrong to ask for whatever it was they asked for, or just a "wouldn't it be fucked up if the genie did that huh"

The user-facing string stuff is definitely the thing that drives me the most nuts. I guess it's nice that it defaults to gag-inducingly transparent, but I don't think the backend structure should be written out in the title element of the app.

Corporate posting in the weeks immediately surrounding a legal case or ruling impacting tech companies is definitely my favorite brand of written text. Despite not paying full attention to EU legislation, I get reliably notified by Google about every tiny bit of antitrust from them posting a "Google brings millions into the EU's [field they are getting hit with antitrust in] ecosystem" vagueblog about it.

Agent forwarding would be pretty big, if it for example pushed your git credentials to the remote host.

LLMs very much operate on the level of text. That text can represent ideas, but it can also directly be a copyrighted work.

I am however very interested in the novel interpretation of copyright that says that you can do whatever as long as your compression is lossy.

Destroying unsold clothes is financially the most efficient thing to do. It remains unclear to me how taking actions to maintain higher markups on products would be socially efficient in any way. Companies of course can keep doing it, they just will face financial and legislative repercussions for it.

There's a bunch of lines before the 7th paragraph that say stuff like "suggests" and immediately before the line you quoted, "Although the material is scarce on the subject,". That's just the nature of history, sometimes you just don't have the full documentation even when you're talking about your own company.

Any specific reason as to why you'd want to make that, outside of intentionally enabling fraud?

If it's anywhere close to the same universe as smaller models in its behavior, a lot of time in "thinking" mode is spent on reiterating on any constraints given in a prompt. So the more constraints you give it, the more tokens it will spend going "Hold on, the prompt said I have to dot my i's and cross my t's. Let me go through my work to check that all the i's are dotted."

How is pasting an article into an LLM going to get you a neutral opinion? It'll be at best an 'opinion' that aligns towards the fine tune dataset used by the org that made the LLM. I'd rather people own their own bias and bring something into the conversation rather than act as a mouthpiece for a statistical median.

Conventional web technologies already can handle this kind of use case, either by wrapping an image in a link tag, or using an alt= value.

Sounds like a bad idea in general. Any data use agreements get lost, shadow-IT brews and nobody knows what tools to use, oh and it's against the service terms.

Sorry, how would that work for literally any non-computational science? You just can't submit papers that involve actual reality?

I don't understand why they'd hand over those data points over to the model in the first place. If it's in the context window, it's impacting the output. To ensure that no weight is placed on those factors, they should be sanitizing them out before handing the data over to the model.

I'm imagining it, and it'd at best be the same as if you gave your website to an ad sales agent without any instructions as to what your actual product or target audience is. At worst it'd be writing copy that is fully fabricated, doesn't match your brand language, and opens you up for false advertising claims.

I'd also strongly endorse its on-the-street mobile app counterpart, StreetComplete. Splitting stuff into tiny tasks you can focus on really helps if you're just out on foot in an area.

The post title about it being "pixel-faithful" is a bit strange. I don't see that claim in the repo, and they don't seem to even claim full feature support at the moment. And for the features marked as supported in .pptx's, it does seem that at least slide image backgrounds and bullet point images aren't actually working, and some text objects have inverted text colors. Seems quite far away from being pixel-faithful in fact.