simondw

Sounds like a very expensive and time-consuming way to build something that won't work very well for a while. Is that the point?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but what is new about the pointer itself? Seems to be functionally the same as selecting + tooltips / context menus.

And whether the LED is off is false or true.

But... cows do drink cow milk, that's why it exists.

Really? If a company advertises a new red version of their widget and I excitedly upgrade because I love red, but when it comes it's gray just like the old widget, don't I have a case? Surely I don't need to demonstrate that red makes me more productive.

That makes sense when tools are as dumb as static notes and TI-84s.

But in the (hypothetical) limit where AI tools outperform all humans, what does this updated test look like? Are we even testing the humans at that point?

Which app?

To be clear, the issue this article is talking about is essentially "during a video call the other party can see your eyes moving."

I agree that we should be vigilant when big corps are adding more and more sensors into our lives, but Apple is absolutely not reporting tracked eye-movement data to advertisers, nor do they allow third-party apps to do that.

The technology to reproduce eye movements has been around since motion pictures were invented. I'm sure even a flat video stream of the user's face would leak similar information.

Apple should have been more careful about allowing any eye motion information (including simple video) to flow out of a system where eye movements themselves are used for data input.

> ‘user-spacey’ applications from the OS manufacturer shouldn’t be privileged beyond other applications

I don't think that's an accurate description, either. The SharePlay "Persona" avatar is a system service just like the front-facing camera stream. Any app can opt into using either of them.

> if Apple is providing raw eye tracking streams to app developers

Apple is not doing that. As the article describes, the issue is that your avatar (during a FaceTime call, for example) accurately reproduces your eye movements.

> Exposure to regular levels of background bacteria and virus keeps our immune system tuned

> While the mask likely does not protect you from background virus and bacteria

If you believe the second statement, why does the first matter?

> it can host all sorts of new growth right against your mouth and face

Have you seen any studies on how quickly harmful growth can build up? I'd guess this to be pretty harmless if you change the mask regularly.

> The vast majority just . . . sit there

> They're machines which must be used [...] not magic evil talismans

I feel like there's a straw man in there. No one is worried about guns sitting around literally unused, and I don't think anyone cares too much about the used/unused ratio. Obviously the thing people are worried about is how they are used when they are used.

> map, and_then, etc. I think this would be called being "monadic".

Strictly speaking, I think providing "map" just makes it functorial. Monadic would need a flatmap. (In addition to the other functor and monad requirements, of course.)

Ah yes, with a delicious frackuccino.

> Arguing you can't do something because someone will be offended is also not very helpful: you can almost always find some offensive interpretation of anything

You mentioned the sorites paradox earlier. Do you think it could be applied here as well?

> less likely to confuse anyone than not using any flag

This doesn't seem obvious to me. I don't think the word "English" is likely to confuse any English speaker.

> anyone offended by this needs to grow a tougher skin

Are you saying this with the personal experience of being from a country that now speaks the language of its colonizer?

Sure, but by undershooting you can simply wait until the time is 1:59:26.53589793 to celebrate.

I think the idea is to profit off the generation of it, not the output works themselves.

But one of the lenses isn't a few steps back from the other.

> fictitious nation-state

Are you referring to Cascadia? That's a perfectly non-fictional name for the region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest).

Or maybe I missed another reference?

> You would ask an LLM based assistant what it can do

But this has the same problem that it's trying to solve in the first place: the LLM's behavior is unpredictable, and that includes its answers to questions like this. There's no guarantee that it won't hallucinate.

Maybe this can be ameliorated by giving it access to some hard-coded and highly vetted list of capabilities?

It's still not quite what the experiment is designed to test. How many people who opt out when given the ability would stick around when not given the ability?

I'm struggling to imagine a mental model of the LLM for which that would make sense. A human who's willing to a lie a little, but comes clean when called out? A robot that mostly doesn't make mistakes, and is more likely to catch its own than make more?

> women find powerful men attractive

You're conflating "is powerful" with "has power over me." The latter can be used for coercion, and it's not always sexy for someone to threaten you.

Someone's actual preference is stored in their memory. If you give the LLM access to a database that includes "preferences", I'm sure it will be able to retrieve that.

That commonality doesn't seem sufficient (to me, a non-expert) to show that there is no difference in meat nutrition.

I have bought from official stores, only for Amazon to say my package is conveniently "Now arriving early" from a totally different seller.

> a pattern in your arguments

> You ask whether it’s worth

> you keep telling people

I just want to point out that the account you're replying to isn't the OP.

For one thing, total revenue over some longer time period is probably the actual thing to maximize. Short-term revenue may not be the best predictor of that, but we still need short-term metrics to evaluate performance.