nitwit005

Sure, but remember the use case being discussed is interrogation. You have a tool that can collect what someone is trying to type, but they aren't trying to type.

And, my point was, there may be zero words to collect at all, because they'll tend not to be actively thinking about any words.

Anime characters they clearly haven't paid for the rights to use seem popular (anime studios typically announce their partnerships).

Also not a copyright violation, but using Elon Musk's likeness without permission for investment scams seems to be a big thing.

Remember that a lot of people have no internal monologue, and even for those that do, it's silent most of the time. They might hope to get that, but the typical case is for there to be no text or voice to extract.

The ads make money though. The cost to approve the media use and have someone quickly glance at it is going to be tiny compared to their revenue.

The more surprising thing with YouTube is how much obvious copyright infringement is in ads. The whole platform seems oriented around copyright enforcement, but ads seem to get a pass.

Their data collection is naturally based off of people talking or typing: https://condu.it/thought/10k-hours

So you'd need to force people to somehow think the same things they do when talking or typing, without actually performing those actions. If you can do that, why not just have them talk?

Most people get quite tired when talking for long periods. You can train that over a long period, but putting on a headset would certainly be more convenient.

The most casual Google searches show results: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOvcEN1kXp0/

Including a research paper from a few years back: https://inversepainting.github.io/

Edit: Actually hadn't thought of fake building construction timelapses, and apparently that's also a thing.

Unfortunately, people will truly try to fake the "paper trail". People posted sped up video of them creating art as proof they made it, so people also used AI to try to generate that.

> I need better doorknobs and or a ramp.

I'm not aware of any tech company lobbying against doorknobs or ramps, and I don't see any particular reason for them to care.

There's been some general corporate push back against the expense of some ADA fixes.

That would clearly be superhuman intelligence, as I suspect the employees would struggle with that one.

A lot of people at Google (and some other companies mentioned here) understood their hiring process didn't function as well as desired.

It's not a forthcoming disruption. They've been using "AI" for various visual effects tasks for a long time already.

If something is not being done using AI now, it's because the results are poor, not because of some sort of reluctance to embrace it.

Natural response to internet stuffed full of fake humans promoting dubious supplements with potential health risks.

The idea that people object to the removal of old structures because they're more attractive is easy to disprove. People have protested against the removal of structures that even they admit are ugly.

There have been protests against removing rusting oil storage tanks. Our "industrial heritage" apparently.

People just grow to accept the eyesores and start to think of them as part of the local identity. You can find complaints about how ugly the Eiffel tower was when it was built. Symbol of the city now.

Not talking specifically to this case, but if you're loud and disruptive, you can prevent others from exercising their free speech. The meetings do need some rules.

> In this scenario, a system administrator logs into a service as usual, but in another window is looking up basic questions about the architecture of the system—information that would be obvious to anyone experienced at the company. These signals are placed in long-term storage but are then processed into an attribute indicating potential risk.

Every system admin is going to send that signal. People pin pictures of the architecture to the walls sometimes.

My current code base has more tests than runtime code. This sounds far more thorough than that. If you limit the possible productivity improvement to a small portion of total effort, it's inherently also going to be a small improvement.

Which, is fine, but not what most people are hoping for with these tools.

Even ignoring financial issues, people are generally willing to talk to major groups or industries. You tend not to get re-elected if you ignore everyone.

Some companies have failed at hiring someone to write code, using low code solutions, and hiring contractors. They aren't going to succeed at using AI to create code either.

Cloudflare got it's early business from sites being taken down by DDOS attacks. The early users of Anubis were often sites taken down by scrapers.

Not a fan of either solution, but the sites simply going offline does not promote an "open web" either.

This mistakes the goal. It's not to block the scrapers, but to discourage excessive (and costly) scraping.

The Anubis cookies are bound to particular IP address. The scrapers are often using a large set of IP addresses, so they'll be paying a far higher cost than this suggests.

Some may remember Google accusing Microsoft of doing this: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses...

The marketing people will never care about making sense. All sorts of products labeled "hand made" or "hand crafted", where the good can't logically be made by hand.

If it ships more product, the label is going on.

Real world results are poor. I've gotten a ticket for not coming to a "full and complete stop" at an empty intersection at 2AM. I drove up to the corner extremely slowly instead. A $500 fine.

That tends to be people's experience with this sort of thing. Laws the police generally wouldn't bother enforcing are maximally enforced, because it generates revenue.

They got rid of that camera eventually because it was "too easy for people to get out of tickets", meaning they were getting tossed when people challenged them.

People will still be asking if things are AI decades from now, because people will still be using AI for deception and fraud.

Tiktok has things like fake generated cooking videos now. After someone tries one, and it doesn't actually work, they're going to want to know if other videos are real before trying again.

They quoted text declaring both that things haven't changed, and that things have changed. There is a basic contradiction there.

One which is present in a lot of layoff messages. Things are fine! Don't worry! Half the staff has to go because things aren't fine though.

Ignoring AI issues, isn't this a convenient way to break into your twin's account?

I think the problem will tend to be more mundane. Picture shows nine chicken tenders, but you get three. You're going to wonder where your other six chicken tenders are.

And then you call them up, and they allow you in after asking some identity questions, and you learn there's no real security.