You answer yourself. A disclaimer which doesn't work to prevent mistakes by, for example, being unmissable is instead deception. Fine print works in the broken US system, but in the rest of the world what matters is intent.

It's not a context. Context has a specific meaning in real world use, and as you explain, the model knows language, not fact, therefore there can be no context. And even when you point some text at the generator, it still generates based on statistics and nothing else what so ever.

What it will do is generate language based on the text in the manual. Not answer questions. Generate statistically likely reponses isn't answering questions.

These systems do not work well. At all. They're statistics based generators, and nothing can change that. And there exists no "logic that figures out" anything in them. What you're writing about is when the generated text happens to coincide with something proper. That's luck, not logic.

That's some of the heaviest denial I've seen around here. You really imagine US health insurance isn't death panels for profit. I thought I'd seen the bottom of denial, but there's apparently some ways to go.

I'm so sorry for you.

That's just about never been my experience, outside of very formal information which have an immense amount of coverage on the Internet. Things like common questions on stackoverflow and the like. Anything even slightly less formal, or uncommon, and it's all made up garbage. Especially when it comes to something which is in news, then it's horrific how bad the generation is.

What "other components" are that?

Tell me you only speak one language without saying you only speak one language. Idioms translate very badly, and misunderstanding an idiom is not "taking things too literally". You would have no clue if she had used a German idiom as a reaction to something you said, and would have misunderstood that.

That you don't even comprehend such basic differences between language and culture shows that your opinions on what idiosyncrasies other cultures have are not only completely irrelevant, but also based on total ignorance. Total. You're literally showing that you have no clue at all what happens when cultures intersect and idioms fail to translate.

It's not "overtly political" to lead a death board which decides who lives and who dies?

Is that really what you imagine?

I knew the US view on politics was warped, but dang son...

An LLM is incapable of actually summarizing. What it does is generate based on statistics, which is literally making stuff up. Occasionally, the made up stuff somewhat conforms to what was in the "summarised" material.

Deceptive design can't be disclaimed away in most EU courts. On the contrary, a disclaimer on a deceptive design is an admission that the design is deliberately deceptive.

In this case, the hallucination is front and center, and the design does not draw attention to links or real quotes at all, even making it hard to realize they're there for someone who is not what used to be termed a power user.

Google has the choice to have a button called "probably incorrect summary" opening the "AI overview", or placing the "AI overview" prominently expecting the user to blindly trust it and be done. Or any other way.

No-one is forcing them which way to implement this. But their choice makes a huge difference in how authoritative a user will find the summary. And no, a disclaimer is not enough. A disclaimer is irrelevant as long as the summary is placed in a spot of prominence and the page design deliberately leads away from using the links to verify what the summary has hallucinated.

This is all on Google. They want people to trust and use the overview, and stop clicking links. The result from that is their responsibility.

I run uBlock Origin on Brave, and it works fine.

Rust has added a process which makes the language handle the bit humans are really bad at handling. The bit where even the most excellent programmer makes easy to miss mistakes just by having a bad day. This process can't be implemented in C.

It's sad what the peanut gallery has become that cause claims like this to be made.

And yes. All input is evil. Exactly all. No exceptions.

It's only "into a hole" from the perspective of a narrow use case. The world of computers is vastly larger and more diverse than it was when workstations first appeared, and Apple made the conscious decision to step away from desktops with server functionality for a reason, and that reason is a good reason. It doesn't align with what you want, or with what you see as most important, but you don't get to set anyone's priorities but your own.

Apple has all the money, and they got them from having a strong focus. Trying to cater to several markets at once after Jobs left almost took them out. They were failing on multiple fronts, and it was only due to Jobs' singular focus they managed to avoid total collapse.

Apple has no reason to try to break into business use, and lots of reasons not to. Businesses require stability and long term commitment to platform and API, and Apple would have to accept support burdens of software platforms for much longer than they do now. That would be immensely costly, and it would cripple their current main advantage; that they're not locked into any form of long term support at all, and can discard support for old APIs and software as they see fit.

NeXTstep was supposed to be the ultimate workstation. It's where the march away from multi purpose systems started, and where the singular focus came from. There were no NeXT server systems. It was all client software, leveraging networks for groundbreaking client to client software.

Removing server features from workstations was a step ahead of the pack. It's an upgrade, and a really important one. It meant they could streamline the OS for the intended task instead of trying to maintain a messy system which was supposed to be able to do several tasks, requiring more and more maintenance to do any of them well.

I won't argue against many of Apple's UI decisions being downgrades, but overall, the increased focus of their devices and OS has been a massive upgrade. Their willingness to dump baggage has also been a great help keeping their OS a lot better and easier to get going with for most people for most tasks. Those who have demands closer to the old day workstation solutions are better served by other OS'es, but we're a blip on the consumer axis, not a norm.

That's because Microsoft behaves as it was 30 years ago.

Since developers use Linux, and prefered OSX or Linux machines, they put Linux in Windows. Then they tried to extend it, by adding PowerShell, certain that it would be a soon indispensable tool so everyone working on Linux would want it. They're pushing hard for making the layer above the kernel their specific kind of generic yet locked in, so it will be possible to encapsulate it and monetize it further down the line.

They're still doing the Embrace-Extend dance, now with Linux. Their strategy hasn't changed. It just can't be as direct, as they found when they paid stooges to sue Linux to break it. So now they're playing a longer game. Just like they always have.

Microsoft are still the Microsoft they were 30 years ago. It's just that their opposition isn't as easy to just push down directly.

If you believe there are gods, you are a theist. That's unrelated to whether you're an agnostic, which has nothing to do with whether you believe there are gods or not. Worship is not a factor in either atheism or agnosticism.

No, I do not want to say an atheist does not worship. That's got nothing to do with atheism. An atheist does not BELIEVE in a god or gods. That's it. That's all you know about all atheists. They hold no belief in any god. Anything else falls outside of atheism.

Agnosticism means one holds that we can't KNOW whether there is a god or not. A trivial example is a god existing outside of our universe, never interacting with it, and which no evidence could ever be found for. That doesn't mean said agnosticist think such a god "might exist". It only means said agnosticist holds that if such a god were to exist, we could never know. That, by the way, is not the only example of how an agnostic may reason, but one of many.

Now, stop teaching people stuff that contradicts normal definitions and use of words. It's really annoying. Not as annoying as your persistence in erecting strawmen, but close to it.