I agree with you that this should be illegal. I expect this was in the terms of service, though. Since we have no laws restricting this kind of bullshit, the company can argue that they’re within their rights.
We need some real legislation around privacy. It’s never going to happen, but it needs to. We need a right to anonymity but that is too scary for advertisers and our police state.
This is the weirdest way to say this. What a weird bot.
I got an MS in a STEM field and wasn’t able to buy a house until I was 36, supervising multiple employees, and married to someone who also contributed.
I always see “did not find”
Sorry, but savory jellos are just not something I have any interest in. Jello with hard-boiled eggs are a hard “no” for me.
This is some peak 1950s American stuff right here!
I was so hopeful until reading your comment… I should have known that no Democrat would have this strong a spine.
No, it says that hard work “leads to success” not that “hard work is success”. Typically, when applied to people, success doesn’t mean working hard. It means attaining something the person wants. In the case of a donkey, their personal definition of success is likely different than for a person. That is what I meant by my comment.
If I’m a donkey, I define it as having good apples, tasty carrots, lots of oats, and companionship from other animals and humans.
I’m also amazed that this comment, of all of my comments, is one of my most downvoted on lemmy. I thought it was pretty tame and just pointed out the silliness of the meme.
This depends on how you define success.
Edit: Huh, I thought this was a pretty tame comment. I just mean that donkeys likely have a different idea of “success” than people do. I’m not quite sure why this is being taken so negatively. I just thought the meme was kind of silly and dumb.
As I keep telling people, they’re not upset about it because their media aren’t telling them about things like this, at least not in the same terms.
I get why they’d use something like this to save money and time but, is suspect that correct use would include a human check before charging people.
We need to start pushing for laws on this kind of thing. Automated checks are fine if you, as the company, trust they won’t have too many false negatives. If you aren’t checking for false positives, though, you should be heavily fined for each false report. $25,000 per false report sounds like a good place to start. Hopefully that would be large enough to not just be the cost of doing business.
Ad a fairly senior developer, I’m not at all surprised. AI speeds me up in some circumstances like writing boilerplate; things like kubernetes manifests. It does not speed up my coding, but it does help me explore options, expand my knowledge, and point me down the right track on new methods and packages. It also lets me do things I wouldn’t normally bother with, but which are good practice like finding edge cases for unit tests, packaging for multiple architectures, writing scripts to profile my code, etc.
Essentially, I’m likely slower writing code with AI assistance but I think the code is higher quality because it let’s me quickly assess many options and implement best practices that are normally tedious to implement manually.
I almost never accept code AI has written without modification, but I think I gain a lot from its use.
I don’t think so. I think they’ll either use it for very benign tasks or they’ll get a LOT of people killed.
Thank you for providing the extra context. That’s very helpful.
I aliased cd to a custom funtion in my bashrc to do this at one point, but cd ../../../.. is too engrained so I never rembered to use it.
I used fakespot a lot. It used huristics to attempt to determine how authentic a product’s reviews are. It analyzed the reviews for things like repeated phrases, odd review activity like bragading, and other things. It then gave a letter grade to the veracity of the reviews and an “adjusted” aggregate review score after removing any reviews that it considered to be suspicious.
I’m going to miss fakespot. I don’t know how accurate it was but it definitely informed my decisions.
I got back in touch with a friend of mine who who graduated in the same class as me with a B.S. in Physics. When they learned that I’m an atmospheric scientist, their first question was “What’s the deal with Chem trails?”
Point being, conspiracy theories also infect the educated sometimes.
I think the disagreement here is semantics around the meaning of the word “lie”. The word “lie” commonly has an element of intent behind it. An LLM can’t be said to have intent. It isn’t conscious and, therefor, cannot have intent. The developers may have intent and may have adjusted the LLM to output false information on certain topics, but the LLM isn’t making any decision and has no intent.
I agree with you. The problem is that lawsuits cost money. Fighting the company on this requires the right plaintiff who is willing to risk money on the problem.