that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.

Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.

A minority that probably hates his guts.

How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.

my experience with iCloud is pretty bad. I worked in a startup at some point which was giving Macs to employees and sort of expected them to figure it out. We had a few people quit and that’s when we figured out that the macs became shiny useless things since we didn’t have access to wipe the associated account and Apple didn’t help in any way. So, from my experience, this is a horrible “feature”.

Now i find out that it’s even worse and it gives 3rd parties means to harass you… I really think that avoiding theft comes at a far to high a price

Sure. My point was that exposing someone to scams like social engineering is really really bad and far less desirable than keeping an open line of communication for a purchase

ISIS? Hamas? any number of such organizations would happily use some mass murdering weapons if given access to them. Putin has shown that he doesn’t care about what happens to russian citizens if he can win something out of their suffering so empowering terrorist organizations to harm people, even russians, is not a big price to pay to make his point

Is it though? The author of this article knows what they’re doing, but a regular person would probably not be as relaxed with some of the threats. I didn’t see this in the article, how does the thief have the ability to contact the victim?

The type of investors who invest speculatively in the money grab that this move is aren’t the types that invest into heartfelt projects which may or may not bring any money. There’s a reason why the fellowship had a budget of $94 million and an unexpected journey had between $200 and $315 million depending on source.

There isn’t a fixed budget somewhere that all these projects are competing for. Whomever is financing this movie is not going to finance whatever projects you’re talking about. However, it might just be that if this is a success and brings a profit and visibility, those other smaller projects will get more funds thrown their way.

so what? It will either be terrible or interesting. Either way, we, personally, have nothing to lose from this being made and a lot to win if it’s not terrible.

Oh, hah sorry! thanks, I didn’t realise that the reddit link pointed to the glue thing

This doesn’t mean that there are reddit comments suggesting putting glue on pizza or even eating glue. It just means that the implementation of Google’s LLM is half baked and built it’s model in a weird way.

Google AI suggested you put glue on your pizza because a troll said it on Reddit once…

Genuine question: do you know that’s what happened? This type of implementation can suggest things like this without it having to be in the training data in that format.

Yes, thank you! I think this should be written in capitals somewhere so that people could understand it quicker. The answers are not wrong or right on purpose. LLMs don’t have any way of distinguishing between the two.

What does this have to do with AI and with what OP said? Their point was obviously about limitations of the software, not some lament about critical thinking

i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid

the modern internet has existed without google much less than it has with google

immediately move on to even more anti consumer ways

but they’ll keep collecting that data even after the slap on the wrist which will be more like a gentle tap

Yeah, a contributing factor for sure. Just like whatever company produced the pencils used by Einstein was a contributing factor to the theory of relativity. Not a sole factor. No, not a sole factor but a factor. Yes

I’m saying musk has never believed in the free market in his life and has never argued in good faith.

isn’t this the definition of hypocrisy?

I think that what you’re saying is that actions of hypocrites cannot be considered hypocritical since it’s their nature to be hypocrites. It’s all a bit circular, isn’t it?

I think that in the case of Mr. Musk, the issue is that he has been seen as an innovator not just as a capitalist for much of his time in the spotlight. For 2018 Musk, this declaration would have been hypocritical. For 2024 Musk, whatever, why are we still listening to this clown?