Well we aren’t commenting under an article of those getting ransacked, are we…
Your concern is justified, and you should target it squarely and solely at the people who build the LLMs and mislead the public about them by obfuscating what “AI” they actually provide.
That’s an ankle monitor that you pay for
You never had a standard for accepting evidence? Why did you even ask then?
You asked for evidence.
List out the evidence you accept.
Removed by mod
Funnily enough, Microsoft built WSL so developers could use Linux without leaving Windows. Instead, it turned a growing number of Windows PCs into functional Linux development machines, with Windows serving as little more than the launcher.
Does this suggest that more Ubuntu users are developers than typical non-technical people (or that they’re about to be)? We need to pump up those numbers on average peoples’ computers
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is a phenomenon that is easy to demonstrate with monitor apps for airtags, pervert glasses, and even Tesla automobiles (yes, they constantly send out a Bluetooth signal your phone can pick up).
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The PNAS article, Epstein says, is not a finger-pointing exercise but an encouragement for dialogue on new research and remedies
I don’t think dialogue will help when Big Tech intentionally uses this stalling technique. Or that this is a bug to be remedied.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Considering the article is AI-generated AI-refined, “ensuring that every article is engaging, clear and succinct,” I think the original source or a better outlet would be preferable
Removed by mod
They did the bare minimum for a change, which means “not committing a crime by hiding evidence they definitely saw.”
Which is a low bar, but one OpenAI fails to pass.