I mean no one is saying you can't make AI content and you'll make money or whatever you just can't win an award for creativity which is what we're talking about. as far as I'm concerned 20% is a low bar no one should be upset about this.

They can and some apps are but that cost (any) will kill free tiers iirc and thus why some of the apps are just shutting down rather than going though that trouble.

my understanding is sideloading *does work* but you need a way to get the APK on to the device.. which is what this app was for. I'm pretty sure i have the app in question on my Firestick. I could use it to download an alternative YouTube app which I keep reminding myself I need to do but that's "the whole issue".

Secondly, it's right there in the term "hallucinated". If it does have a state of mind, it was in a delusional, hallucinating state of mind. Not guilty.

good jesus do not engage in terminology they created to explain why the program is failing

Just because i call a flat tire a broken leg doesn't mean it's analogous to a broken leg and should take weeks to heal. Just because they call it hallucination doesn't mean it IS hallucination. Even if we (gags a little) assume it has a state of mind. There's no reason to assume it was delusional anymore than there is a reason to assume it's a pathological liar. Some politicians lie and they're legitimately delusional. Some politicians lie and they're pathological. Half the time we can't tell the difference and all of us are finely sculpted machines designed to read intent from a member of our own species. This is just a black box. It doesn't even HAVE a face.

the thoughts and actions

just to be clear... not thoughts. Just output. Like when you type numbers into your TI-83 and hit equal sign or enter. That's not the calculator thinking and acting to give you a response. Calling it thoughts implies intelligence and that's what got everyone in the mess we're in now. A very cool calculator is still just a calculator. This tool is just doing what 60% of a first year algebra class wishes you could do. Math with words.

b) What if it is an open source AI? Who's legally responsible for that one?

I don't think being open source should be some sort of magic shield from culpability. That's like saying just because I used an open source gun to shoot you I have no culpability because the gun wasn't my design. I think the company shouldn't be culpable because trusting AI explicitly without verification is moronic. Like trusting a counting horse to do your arithmatic. Is the horse wrong? no it's just a horse. Is the owner responsible for the horse. Yeah but the real problem here is the person who went to a horse to use it as a calculator when there's no reason to expect a horse to be able to do math consistently correctly.. AI should not be a valid considered way to perform certain tasks. The fact that some moron thought to use it to look up legal precedent is on the moron.

I do however maintain that the farmer shouldn't be allowed to advertise his horse as a graphing calculator because it's not. It's just a separate issue from idiots who think a horse can do integral calculus.

just RTFA and seeing as how the informaiton wasn't actually published. Because in this case the person actually checked the horse math before turning it in. I don't even see why this is a lawsuit. IMO two things could be going on. 1) ChatGPT IS giving this answer to everyone who asks. Possible but unlikely. In my minimally educated opinion. The other is that 2) he's even MORE of an idiot and assumes if the AI said it one time it's like a website and thus is has already been published by Chat GPT. In that case while I understand why they would want to sue the company. It's wrong for the alternative reason that it hasn't been published. It was basically a one on one conversation

As a minor amendment apparently the reporter DID do a fact chat and was corrected and didn't publish the story. So I'm confused why on earth this is a lawsuit in the first place. The only way I could see that working is if ChatGPT *consistently* gave the same lying response but it's as likely to change to a completely different answer if you ask it from a different computer.

well that depends on your definition of a lie. In some contexts a lie is is a deception. In some contexts a lie is an untruth intended or not. ChatGPT may not be capable of intentional deception but it's certainly definitionally capable of untruth.

exactly

i disagree. Because unlike Wiki pedia which is user submitted content. There's no real way to define a living person algorithmically. The AI doesn't actually understand the difference between living and dead. Unless you have a database of who is alive that it can cross check. The real solution here is education and advertisement. The problem is people expect way more from this than it's capable of. That has to do with how they advertise it (and allow it to be advertised via word of mouth) and how people are educated about it. Using terms like "hallucination" doesn't help people understand how "dumb" these AI systems are. The solution is for people to just understand that AI will make stuff up randomly and unexpectedly and it will sound correct. Unlike say Wikipedia there's no human editor who may be motivated to lie or deceived into lying. The AI will just spontaneously lie for reasons we can't really know. Most people can understand how Wikipedia while a great source of information usually can be editing by anyone and thus in theory can have a random lie that someone put in. Most people don't care but they understand. That understanding is being (imo deliberately) masked with these AI tools. This is WORSE than Wikipedia because you can generally understand where the lies come from in the former. A lie about the nature of insulin formation in mammals is unlikely because settled science with little controversy. A lie about Jefferson and Hemings would be less surprising giving the less concrete information and controversial topic there.

than this man sueing chat GPT instead of the reporter who was too lazy to actually report, is the idea that AI "hallucinates". I hope to great heaven above this term doesn't catch on because it's not hallucinating. That's something living creatures do and saying that implies that AI is thinking and living. It's an awful terminology. Call it what it is. AI makes stuff up randomly. Now it's less "mysterious and awe inspiring" (we made AI so powerful and living it even has dysfunctions like us) and more "just untrustworthy" (our calculator will make up numbers if the calculation is too complex). Which is how we should be treating these things. It's a fun little toy but any real work should never trust it. This tool has a VERY narrow scope of use that I'd trust it for and that's like... programming and... maybe that's it.

We need to stop trying to be like Jordan Peterson and treating it like a child and finding ways to get it to "engage in play" or whatever dumb things people see AIs do in movies. In real life this is basically a spellcheck on steroids. It takes words that should be together based on your input and gives them to you. it doesn't understand what the words are. It's programmed not to allow itself to say certain words. When it "threatens humanity" it's not coming up with it's own thought. It's regurgitating anything you read online about AI.

CGI this CGI that. AI can't be the answer to everything. CGI should be there to enhance what's possible not replace it. Pay more money for makeup people those dudes and dudettes are real magic when you support them and the effects will last a heck of a lot longer than CGI. Plus you could actually shoot well lit scenes rather than having every act go dark just before the CGI fight.

Give money to poor people is one of the most effective things you can do with money on an institutional level. Heck the only thing that comes close is giving money to the IRS so they can get their due from rich people hiding their money elsewhere.

No one cares about Edge's performance. They care about being able to use sites that for some forsaken reason REQUIRE Edge.

do you seriously think people only look at the candidates voting history in congress and their platform and nothing else can sway them from well reasoned arguments weight against the likelihood of their getting accomplished based on the difficulty and candidate's temperament?

Because unless you believe that then it makes just as much sense for people to be swayed by facebook as it does the nightly news or the paper or good website design.

Apples I'm sure gets SOME user information from google. Why pay to get an engine that gives you no information.

Honestly just kill the tip and roll in a fair cost to the shopper as part of the service charge. I hate tipping. The idea that I'm paying a service charge, delivery charge AND then I have to figure out how much tip I want to give.