"I'm sorry. I seem to have burned down your house, despite your clear instructions not to do so. I'm very, very, terribly sorry."
They could easily have it back if they ran their own local offline model....
I wonder what the ven overlap would be of the categories "capable of running offline model" and "likely to fall in love with chatbot".
"macOS 27 Beta Boots Asahi Linux Off Apple Silicon "
I initially thought the above headline meant "MacOS capable of running Asahi Linux on Apple Silicon"... where as it appears the article is instead about almost the opposite, an incompatibility with a recent Apple change hampering its ability to run Asahi linux.
Most people simply don't care because they feel no need to hide anything.
I'd rephrase that as: Most people don't understand how much they have to hide, and -- because it's daunting for them to create an alternate tech ecosystem for themselves -- they psychologically push aside whatever nagging worries they have about what they might indeed want to hide.
Put another way: people are addicted to the current status quo, and trapped by their lack of tech expertise. Which is not the same as objectively self-assessing that they have nothing to hide.
an amusing example of how training can go wrong
My understanding is that this isn't a consequence of a flawed training algorithm or process; it's instead a consequence of the limitations of LLMs, emergent from their training materials. It closely parallels another example I've seen around the net, that of asking an LLM about getting a car to the mechanic, noting it's a sunny day and the mechanic is just a block away, and having the LLM suggest walking... which is a consequence of the bias in training materials toward walking because lots of people make visible posts about their having done so (because it's looked on favorably), whereas people who drive short distances (of which there are many, probably outnumbering walkers) don't trumpet having done so online, leading LLMs to emit advice about walking when possible (and in the case of the mechanic example, having a lack of comprehension of the pivotal aspect of having the car make it with you to the mechanic's shop).
"Fire Phone" is a terrible name
I suggest "Layoff Phone".
Windows is now slower than Linux.
To be clear, this was true over 20 years ago. (In light of which, the word "now" probably doesn't belong in the above phrase, since it implies recentness.)
It is sad to see an innovator lose out,
They were first to market, but I don't think of them as having invented the product.. The emergence of chatbots seems inevitable once the paper in 2017 was authored by several google engineers (titled "Attention is all you need")... it was just a question of exactly who and when. If OpenAI hadn't gone first, someone would have shortly after.
And, in a lot of ways even that google paper's "breakthrough" wasn't so much the tech (neural nets) but the precise adaptation of it that made it highly parallelizable.
And a necessary ingredient was tons of data, and processing power. So this couldn't have happened in a garage operation like the innovators of yore. And the biz models they're all coming up with are all cloud based -- not that I don't see the profit motivation, but so utterly to the exclusion of any offering that could guarantee privacy; all we "know" about chatbot conversation privacy is what each vendor claims at the moment,, which isn't much, wouldn't be verifiable if it was, and could change on a whim tomorrow.
For these reasons, I don't attach much "early innovator" romanticism to the players here.
Only God can make random selections.
