Scanning somewhat predictable documents to pick out specific data and then using traditional text matching tools to verify if the information. From my experience there is about 5% error rate due to the randomness of MML engines, but building a simple loop that sends the request back through the engine with an adapted prompt specifying to ignore a specific text, usually gets the correct result. Stopping and erring out after 3 loops seems to bring the error rate down to less than 1% - So, what is this good for? Well, it can save lots of time in text input, where a document needs to be read and inputted into a form and saved to a database for search and statistics. - Cutting hours of the menial "read document and type into form in web app" tasks away. So far my experience with code generation is laughable at best. And text generation is equally bad.

If they don't want high quality code just commit what the AI slob produces... Verbatim... Doesn't compile? Why bother? Full of security holes? Sure, this is what the master wants! The AI doesn't understand the request because that is what usually happens? Just commit the answer... If they don't want development then get paid to commit stuff generated by an AI...

Not much more to say about this

The claim was that it would breed invention but instead it breeds greed... Anyone who builds a useful product will immediately turn around and try to figure out how to disable it with adds if there is no other way to get a steady money flow out of it...

Back in the mid 90's I was on the team that arranged the three installments of SSDP (South Sealand Demo Party) in Denmark. - The fewest people we had was 150, the largest was 400... Now those were the days.

It doesn't matter what freedoms they are trying to fight against or what minority they are trying to suppress, it is always the same argument: "Think of the children" - even when it turns out that their backers are actively participating in and profiting from child prostitution they still just repeat the sales pitch... Apparently in order to "save the children" there can be no privacy, there can be no minorities, there can be no thinking, there can be no freedom...

In order to keep up the $100mio/year paycheck to the CEO the last customer will have to pay $10mio a month...

If they are doing like they have done in Spain, they will broadly ban anyone who uses Netflix from "non standard" setups... In Spain you are basically closed off from using Netflix if you live in a building with shared fiber (like a lot of buildings in poorer areas have) or use technology such as VPN... So, it is most likely that you will get screwed over...

Considering that 9/10th of the market was russian crime's whitewashing it would seem like the place to go, right?

Just to reiterate, again, having a right to your own privacy IS the norm, having the right to a fence, a wall, a door, a damned blanket, IS the norm. However they try to angle it, wanting to take these rights away is a police state. Funny enough, it is the same people who time and again gets caught diddling kids, that are also for a police state. My best guess is that they want to overwhelm the police with so much data to analyse, that they themselves remain undetected...

I stopped buying HP products when they tied in functionality to their online monitoring system "cloud account" - Not that I have anything to hide, really, but the combined snooping with the worse inconvenience of having to log in to a cloud account when I want to use my own damned scanner is just too annoying... I'll never buy anything from HP again, I'd suggest the same for anyone else...

Spending an hour or two each day in traffic or public transport seems like such an archaic thing now... Hell, I'm surprised we put up with it for as long as we did.

Your quote above actually confirms what I wrote "strictly controlled" is the kind of extreme measure "sentiment control" that you right-wing people seem to enjoy so much. Anyway, you have yet to answer what public officer you want to have stationed in your home to surveil what your computers are used for?

The point here is that there is so much of this sh*t out there that a simple quantitative evaluation of available data and reduction into core elements will result in a dataset that is vastly skewed from reality into a facistoid alternate reality.

You premise is false... Both in subject and in form. By your argument the mere existence of nudity is harmful to children and therefore we must ban and censor all content, not only on the internet but everywhere, since children could potentially get to it. There is no point in arguing your "point", you find the human body reprehensible, I don't, you want to live in a world where censor decide what you are allowed to see and think, I don't want to live in that world...