taormina

""" I’m basically calling the AI industry dishonest, but I want to qualify by saying they are unnecessarily dishonest. Because they don’t need to be! They should just not make abstract claims about how much the world will change due to AI in no time, and they will be fine. They undermine the real effort they put into their work—which is genuine!

Charitably, they may not even be dishonest at all, but carelessly unintrospective. Maybe they think they’re being truthful when they make claims that AGI is near, but then they fail to examine dispassionately the inconsistency of their actions.

When your identity is tied to the future, you don’t state beliefs but wishes. And we, the rest of the world, intuitively know. """

He's not saying either way, just pointing out that they could just be honest, but that might hamper their ability to beg for more money.

The didn’t actually get to market before Waymo in the robotaxi market

Well, graphics plateaued and then we started to remember that fun and highest fidelity graphics don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other.

Even if the word AI was not involved, this just sounds like Amazon's standard, well documented toxicity.

I like the idea, but I see no reason to shield the management that demanded this of the rank and file. Accountability should go all the way up the chain.

No no, they are being forced to KEEP the data they collected. They didn't have to keep it to begin with.

It’s part of it. It was on the decline and then for some reason Google decided that the best way to handle their dumpster fire was to chuck gasoline cans into it.

There are also bad actors who pretend to be the Google scraper. Google once upon a time had a reputation for respectfully scrapping, but if he's getting the traffic he needs with or without the Googlebot, why should he care?

He’s selling exclusively to the C-suite. Why would he care about the white collar workers? He wouldn’t be trying to put them all out of work if he cares

If someone doesn't go to jail for this, was it high risk?

That's true in the USA, is that true in Poland as well?

Is it possible to bring Google to court for defamation? Not the individual, but Google itself?

My problem with this usage is that the LLMs seem equally likely to make up a function they wish existed. When questioned about the seeming-too-convenient method they will usually admit to having made it up on the spot. (This happens a lot in Flutter/Flame land, I'm sure it's better at something more mainstream like Python?) That being said, I do agree that using it as supplemental documentation is one of the better usecases I have for it.

I’m still working on Danger World!

https://danger.world

Flutter + Flame + Spine + YarnSpinner. After a year of development, we’re coming up on some very fun milestones!!!

And you don’t hire founders.

Inflation goes up, perk and comp stay the same, is the same as a % cut

The study is versus no therapy at all.

We understand the consequences. The only projects listed that matter are the open source ones. They’ll survive. The rest don’t matter and will die as they frankly would’ve already if not for Google unfair position in the market.

Uh what? It’s extremely popular in the US? You wanna source that claim?

It’s still SQLite. Drift as an ORM they are using on top of SQLite.

I mean, Carnegie Mellon was #2 in computer science in the nation at one point despite not being an accredited program because of their lack of mandatory calculus requirements

I mean, as much as the modern world wants to convince you to revolve your life around making your kid comfortable at every moment of the day, this is actually a super important life skill and you need your kid to develop it.

Of course they do. They did not provide explicitly the prompt for that, but what about this technique would not work on a fresh ChatGPT session?

If you claimed that your source was The Onion, you’d get similar responses. You can make a claim, with no source, and expect the traditional answers. When your source is a “known to produce crap” source, what would you expect to hear?

If you said you Google’d it, we’d still ask for a source.

There’s an argument that being intentionally annoying is impolite.

The whole article is about AI being bullied into actually being direct

I mean, the MIT license might be a “more permissive” license but it says very explicit things that Microsoft is explicitly ignoring. Your license choice doesn’t matter when they ignore the license anyway.

Oh boy, credits that only work in their cloud. That’ll cover rent.

The dropdown immediately below this textbox is where you select all of that. But no, I didn't include it in the text body of the support message.