Given that being "woke" is largely analogous to being "aware", it's perhaps fitting that someone who objects to it is so wilfully ignorant that they don't appear to have read the summary, let alone the article....

from relatives of people who died laughing.

1) ChatGPT and it's ilk happily generate plausible but often wrong information.
2) Greedy lazy humans inevitably use it to generate endless amounts of content for advertising clicks.
3) Profit! (for them)
4) All future AI is trained on a training set hopelessly polluted by (2) and, no matter what the improvements are made to modelling etc, can't overcome the poisoning of the training set.


If you thought disinformation was bad already, the industrialisation of disinformation is upon us.

Read and write access are two different things. If you "just use Excel" then an attacker would only require read access to get the data. Write access and requiring the target to run the executable is at least a marginally higher barrier to jump.

The beauty of Open Source is that you are not entirely beholden to upstream. Just because the Python org isn't maintaining something any more doesn't mean you can't choose to, or can't choose to pay someone else to do it for you. Of course there is a lot to be said for keeping up to date, but this is exactly the sort of choice that Open Source licences are designed to allow.

Total bollocks.... It's a bit fucking embarrassing when a random Australian knows more about your system of government than you do...

Nah, it's clearly talking about legal claims.

What constitutional issue do you think the Supreme Court will need to resolve?

What do "constitutional issues" have to do with anything?

but if you want to object to that then you can't say so on social media or in the news

Where are you getting that from? It's certainly limiting your legal claims, ie would presumably mean you can't make a copyright claim, but doesn't seem to be saying anything about you talking about it anywhere.

The main problem as I see it, for both Google and ChatGPT is that they are operating on information from a pre ChatGPT world.

The question for both isn't so much whether they can provide the most useful interface for a human to use, it's whether they can deliver actually useful information if there is a massive increase in the volume of generated, vaguely plausible but possibly flawed information in the source data set.

He presumably means the mentioning of Musk in the first four words of the article is "fawning" given he has very little to do with it. It is rather odd, and does feel a little like an attempt to lift Musk's reputation.

It is an odd experience, dealing with something that is both astonishingly impressive and flawed at the same time. I imagine it's a similar feeling to Tesla self-driving, a bit of a marvel but not much use without the close attention of someone who knows what they are doing. There are certainly parts of my job which this thing seems to be able to make a decent start on, but would require some informed tweaking to be truly useful. Maybe it can do some of the more boring parts.

"We've done a shit job of delivering content with the many studios we have already acquired, so you don't need to worry about us acquiring this mega-studio"

How nice of you to be so accurate with your comment subject.

I thought solar panels are already pretty cheap and installation costs were now a significant part of the cost? No point paying to install "very cheap solar panel-like roofing material" if it means you are paying a fair chunk of the costs and getting zero benefit.