That’s exactly why Google Search has gone so far downhill that it’s pushing people elsewhere. Searches are supposed to be fast at giving you the answer you’re looking for. But that is antithetical to advertising. It’s why Google has been scraping data for years to build their own internal responses to easy queries like simple calculations, definitions, basic wiki results, etc. since you never even need to leave their site. Can’t get faster than that, until those results can no longer be trusted.

Now those quick results can’t be trusted, thanks largely to their blind AI fixation. That trust can never be earned back, it is lost permanently. Many users will instead start looking for alternatives that don’t feed them bullshit responses and instead just give them the links to good info, like Google used to.

deleted by creator

This, plus just how egregious was it?

No one is wanting to read these messages like they’re 50 Shades of Grey or anything like that. Well, there’s probably somebody but that’s not why most want to see it. Clearly it was not bad enough to get the police involved at the time, so we’re talking less than To Catch A Predator.

Ignoring the age difference for a second, because that part is not relevant to my specific point here… What some people consider flirty, others consider creepy. On a similar note, the same comment coming from a person someone considers attractive and from someone they find ugly often has a completely different reaction.

Doc says that it crossed a line, that’s not under debate by anyone at this point. He says there were no pictures, etc. exchanged, just messages and there was no intent to meet up or anything like that. On the other side one of the original tweets claimed they were sexting. Peoples definitions of sexting can vary dramatically as well.

So clearly the messages went over the line of being inappropriate, no argument there from anyone paying attention, but how far over that line was it? Were they truly explicit messages, or just inappropriate within the context of a 35 year old talking to a minor?

It’s an officially recognized spec, so Apple will ignore it as long as they can. Until they can find a way to make money from it or spin marketing as if it’s some miraculous new invention of theirs, for something that should just be how it’s done.

So the only products that met the budget actually approved by management.

It wasn’t just “the corpos”, you can basically tie changes to the copyright system back to Disney trying to maintain a strangle hold on their fucking mouse.

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/

That depends on if you see the current copyright system as far to start with. The current system is a far cry from how it was created and was co-opted by companies like Disney to maintain monopolies on their IP for MUCH longer than the system was supposed to protect.

That left. And far as I remember it wasn’t a situation of being pushed out, he left on his own. Probably because he disagreed with everyone else about something.

Ironically with all the hubbub about Sam Altman, it seems like he somehow might have not been the clear worst of the bunch. Somehow.

Sort of. It’s there if you already had it. Otherwise it’s gone on new vehicles.

My model 3 still has it listed.

Almost like instead of relying on faulty AI predictions, they can just include that as a bio and search option. No bullshit AI necessary.

Make sure you fill out that FTC form if you’re located in the US.

Sounds like the shareholders need to do a little more than propose. The company does work for them after all. They keep talking about shareholder value to justify the focus on profits above all else.

Here the shareholders are literally saying they value these things specifically above general profit motives, and the company is responding with what amounts to “fuck you”.

The legal definition of something is not grammar.

Purposely not disclosing the usage of a tool that is widely reported and known to provide false information until after it is signed into law shows a pretty clear lack of ethics.

You assume that someone actively checked that. We know for a fact that legislators routinely don’t actually read the bills they approve, and a disturbing amount of the time issues are found after things are signed into law because they didn’t actually read the damned things in the first place.

He also claims he asked ChatGPT because he needed the definition of deepfake. So instead of going to any number of dictionaries where definitions are located… He asked an LLM AI that has been proven to provide false information, to generate an answer. And then kept that fact a secret.

The fact he admits that he purposefully kept the ChatGPT use a secret until after it was signed into law proves that he knew it was at least a shady idea. It doesn’t matter whether it actually made a difference, that shows a disturbing lack of ethics.

We have apparently evidence that he doesn’t know what a dictionary is, or how to find one, even online. And a willingness to use tools he doesn’t understand to generate laws everyone will be bound by. From his actions here we have shown a pretty clear lack of proper ceitical thinking and ethics.

Google runs passive A/B testing all the time.

If you’re using a Google service there’s a 99% chance you’re part of some sort of internal test of changes.

The fact he kept the use of an LLM, which are known to provide false information, a secret should be grounds for an immediate removal from office.

They have already started their own platform, Floatplane. And other creators are on it as well.

Simple fact is though, YouTube is still king, and so leaving YouTube entirely isn’t tenable at this point. But they are already working on alternatives.

Actually, it said Full Self Driving (BETA) until it was updated to (Supervised) recently.

If anything, the beta qualifier is actually better than just saying supervised since that term means not complete and still being developed.

Merit to continue just means it’s not clearly a bullshit lawsuit that should be thrown out to avoid wasting court time. Your linked lawsuit also is not about whether someone is legally responsible for a vehicle driving itself, it is again about the marketing.

I don’t give a shit whether their marketing is a lie. Marketing is not the issue at hand, as much as you all want it to be for whatever reason instead of actually blaming the shitty drivers. It has no bearing on whether someone is responsible for the vehicle they are in the driver seat of hitting something or someone.

Why do you not want to put any blame on these drivers? Drivers that ignore the warning when they turned on the function in the first place and that warns them every time they turn it on to still pay attention. Why are you so insistent that the blame should be on Tesla because of what they call it?

Makes me start to think you’re that type of driver and trying to justify your belief that you shouldn’t be responsible for the actions of a 2 ton murder machine traveling at high speed that you are in control of.