ncr100

Email them...?

And the island of Guam is not clickable / visible in landscape mode on the phone.

Is like Microsoft Windows in that way?

Claude Sonnet 5 'High', first attempt, is functional and quite basic:

- https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/4598e48b-8b19-473a-88c4-9...

"Artisanal" english.

I can't even

^ Intentional.

Cool.

Now that we are living in The Future, I am dumbfounded how e.g. dynamically populated lists change their content reliably to something I did not want, during the phase of interaction where my finger is descending onto the target. Click! Not what I want.

Feels like a lost art which will be "discovered" again in the next 15 years.

This seems like a general UI bug.

Q: For those amongst us who are UI experts, what is it called when dynamic lists populate unpredictably while a finger-tap is in-progress?

a) start query and see initial results

b) start finger-navigation, moving finger over initial results

c) start finger-tap descent

d) underlying list is updated, replacing future finger-tap destination's UI element with another

e) finger-tap meets different element than intended

EULA perhaps, or do you think not?

He does, it's in his bio in LinkedIn

Mmm I have had two foldables .. 3 years daily usage ... and they're great phones and great tablets.

So, ymmv.

Lease for $58/mo .. $1392 over lease life

Means the authors of the paper are "authors".

To build on this, is it correct to say ANY training on data from any individual originating human deserves to be cited and attributed on the solut6paper?

I wonder whether these bickering users (of AI various products) with math degrees are missing the forest for the trees.

Is it that they / mathematicians didn't solve it? But rather that WE ALL WHO WERE SPIDERED FOR THE MODELS SOLVED IT is the true attribution?

Graffiti is amazing. It is protest.

Here is the EULA: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/

After reviewing it - idk? It's too complex for me to understand .. in my naivety!

Agreed - and with AI being able to easily navigate arbitrarily complex and humanly-misleading systems, average humans (without a personal lawyer always on retainer) are at an increasing disadvantage in society.

Additionally e.g. the UK has right-to-repair which may influence this subject:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49552588 (from elsewhere in this discussion).

I disagree that it's "inherently deceptive". That claim deserve justification IMO.

It's an obtuse-feeling abstraction.

> ".. or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has .."

Yep - I agree with the sentiment.

Reality is, we have a set of systems in society capable of over-complicating (from a HUMAN sense) life, which reasonably can be seen to make life unpleasant for the less-enfranchised populations - those without a personal lawyer to review every action they take in life...e.g you and me.

I get it. And the point I failed to make is they did redefine it via a normal process of contract.

A bit of pedantry:

> Sony is the one with the different definition

Yes, agreed.

And to build on that, Sony is using a normal legal vehicle, a contract to make that different definition. And customers of Sony are entering into contract .. which is very normal thing for customers to do when engaging in business relationships with businesses.

> "That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is"

Yep.

To reinforce my yep, (tiredly - sorry but I am) - The yoke of bureaucracy and this complex economy we live in also rests upon us, the citizens. It is a burden - and an increasing risk as AI is unleashed into more and more of our systems, digital AND legal / policy / social. (AI has "infinite" memory so it can use circumlocution, taking advantage of overly complex and distracting

Looping back:

I could have said "it suuuuucks, f' the man, man!" as I do hold that view. However we are here, with legal contracts capable of imposing these broad and uncomfortable relationship constraints (eg between customer & business).

SO the question, in my mind, is HOW are we going to understand WHAT we want society to look like, as presently and into the future an INHUMANLY complex set of rules is capable of limiting our expressive existence, leading reasonably to general dissatisfaction in life?

Nice - I live in the USA, for reference.

We don't have that, here. We have "Freedom" .. which I am suspecting is redefined to mean "kakistocracy".

Sure, https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-march-2... - see section 10.1.

For part of the above sentence ... "it" is existent, not nonexistent.

And about the ".. I have .." part of the comment you wrote, @kstrauser, by using their service a person must agree to their contract.

So, if you, per-se, don't use their service, then you haven't entered into the (existent) contract with Sony!

Here is the segment:

> 10.1. All intellectual property rights subsisting in the Content, including all software, data, services, and other content subsisting in or used in connection with our Services, the Online ID and access to content and hardware used in connection with our Services belong to SIE, its affiliates, and its licensors. Use of the terms "own," "ownership", "purchase," "sale," "sold," "sell," "rent" or "buy" in this Agreement or in connection with the Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates, or its licensors to any user or third party.

An example of:

- Quality With A "K" !

Is AI able to easily catch these kinds of errors with a carefully crafted addendum to the prompt?

Fascinating response by OpenAI, "the report’s authors declined our request for access" - AFAIK OpenAI is not clicking on the live, public links to either the report or the still-live memo data linked from here on HackerNews.

Full:

> “We are unable to meaningfully respond to claims or findings on a report that we have not had an opportunity to review," an OpenAI spokesperson said. "Reuters and the report’s authors declined our request for access. We will carefully review its contents upon publication and take any necessary next steps."

Not public

Does some things better

Rhetoric of AGI being tossed around, redefining the term

What if it's only able to make a worse form of cancer? :-/

Would cancerbench be unethical?