drawfloat

But the reader cannot be sure they ARE understanding what you are trying to convey. Maybe the LLM added something you never thought of, maybe it made form to your various thoughts in a way that isn't actually true to the way you would have communicated them if you did it yourself.

The exercise of writing is an important step of actually understanding your own thoughts properly. Readers are reading to get a sense of your own experience and ideas on the topic, if it turns out you didn't actually write the final thing yourself they'll always feel a sense – in whatever way – of being conned by the author. Intentional or not.

Technical documentation, where what the reader wants to come away with is the clear facts on what something does and how to use it/whatever, is a different matter. But even then editing is key – overlong text, unnecessary information, these will again fight against what the reader is there to get.

With that said, if you do want to do it, a disclaimer is at least upfront and may well show there's no intentional attempt to deceive.

It has very little to do with Trump. When he leaves, this shift isn't going away.

Are they? This reads more like a way to stop people reusing their results in other services rather than reducing spam results, but I may be mistaken?

People were jailed over Charlie Kirk statements within the last year...

What's hyperbolic? The trust thing is borne out by repeated polling of which countries people trust. The current US administration is openly profiteering from governing.

I do think it'll take a few years before Americans wake up to how badly their reputation has tanked around the world across successive governments of either party in the recent decade.

Greenland, Iran, Falklands, Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, all these things probably feel like minor missteps in the US news cycle but they have had a major impact.

Your digital identity would then be under the jurisdiction of the US government, who (despite talking a big game) are arguably worse for that same sort of behaviour.

If anyone has to have this type of control, better it be a local national government that you can in at least some small way influence.

You've never seen someone refer to Europeans or Germans..?

I'm not sure if surveillance is on a par in the UK anymore. ANPR (police run license plate recognition system that scoops up all plates that pass) was a big point of contention during 90s and 00s, but even that has been superseded by Flock (private collection, no major legal safeguards, AI based constant review rather than human review etc).

Honest question, because I am not sure: could they become a gaming GPU company again in a quarter? Or have they restructured manufacturing away from them to produce data centre GPUs?

You’re credulous about the concept of someone working part time?

It’s beyond naive to think this falling apart will not hit the jobs and finances of ordinary people who never touched ai investment.

Probably should be telling the design team to actually use the colours that are approved then.

Why does your username contain “APU”?

Didn't we just have a round of people being fired and arrested in the US for saying mean things about Charlie Kirk?

...yes on the last? Might be in a minority on that one.

I don’t have kids, but I live in society.

City of London != London, the city

The City is indeed pretty non green

“ But the social media ban does not stop there. The provision also requires internet service providers to limit the time kids spend online, and has rules about who can contact them online. These extreme rules will take decisions about using technology away from families and put them in the hands of government regulators. “

I’m not sure that “there are rules on who can contact children online” is “extreme” for anyone outside of hyper libertarian circles.

The EFF needs to start engaging with actual real world, because it’s intransigence on the issues being caused by unfettered internet usage mean it is unable to prevent bad solutions being proposed.

Honestly it might not be the worst thing. Facebook et al were way too entrenched in European society before the geopolitical negatives became apparent. Getting cut off now, regardless of whether it comes back tomorrow, will encourage not being overly reliant on one country’s LLM providers.

We’re talking about Europe. The context of this entire article is Europe.

In America. That is not true for all other countries.

And in even more countries it is legal to film, but it's not legal to send that footage back to Meta's servers for use in LLM training.

No they got away with it through a combination of lax pharmaceutical laws, and because they were rich and connected to the officials who should have investigated them.

They're also almost universally regarded as having committed evil acts at this point, so who cares why they got away with it?

We just had years of US model providers arguing it was fine to rip off the world’s cultural output for their own profit, why should their work be treated any different?

Put the LLM down and talk to humans as a human.

Slop.

They probably don’t like it because the AI industry has spent years saying it wants to make them all unemployed.

For all its flaws and limitations in practice, you have far greater data privacy in the UK than the US. Largely because it seems you basically have none as a private citizen in the US.

First amendment has nothing to do with it.

Because they reside in the UK? Why would anyone outside the US want their data in the US, the organiser and leader of the Five Eyes?

Much the same way the word "patriotism" is more common in US national discourse, "sovereignty" is very common in UK national discourse.

That’s not how the real world works. You will be kicked out of the workplace and rightly so.