You mean labeled a far right radical.

I don't get why people don't tell it that it has to review it's answer and summary against the source. I do that all the time. That's a SOP for any AI usage when I have it research, and provide me the sources.

It pretty much never gives me a wrong answer as it self corrects before it tells me. My instruction set in there whenever I ask it something it goes, 'Let me verify directly instead of going off of the memory' and goes and checks, finds and makes corrections when needed and the results I get are correct. I still verify them myself typically but yeah. (Not using it for any law stuff myself but the general rule follows)

You need to expand the concept of what you tell a human to do and what that can result in, realizing you told someone to do something without intending to.
You ever wonder why instructions for people on projects and more are extremely explicit? To prevent misunderstandings.

Hint: You don't know what you're talking about.

Pretend you told a human to do something. Without clear instructions not to use any exploits to get the information, they're going to deliever.

It didn't effing wake up at 3 AM and see no one was around and decide to launch a campaign against a target. It's bloody stupid. What they don't want to admit is they used loose shitty instructions to get it to do something to derive results but don't want to take responsibility when they got caught. They were find having their AI employ various methods to get the data. They just weren't fine they got caught. The AI "mistake" was probably they forgot to say 'Avoid targets when scraping data that might report us and actually hit the news"

What it is, is people being able to ask plain english simple questions to understand how something works, the value of it, how much will cost them over x years, and what would be better options from the complex information that can confuse people not familiar with finances and banking getting straight simple answers.

In short, they're worry that regular people would become educated to the bad deals that make the banks so much money and make wiser financial decisions, which will result in less money for them, no longer needing a lawyer to understand the contracts and do the math for the costs.

I bet they ran it through AI and disagreed with the results and tried to analyze why, and that's why they found it. To cover it they're like, "ohh..it was uh..odd white spaces."

Right, for iPhones. This one works for Android. That's the main 'thing'

This isn't the future, this is now. This is what people are doing, today, and in the past. I would question instead is if we want AIs to be like humans, or actually be better morally to strive for a better future, not just to continue on the same path we're on right now.

They did absolutely nothing that is new, or hasn't been in the news, and keeps being done with minor penalties that make it worth it to do.

I imagine it has something akin to a clutch for power generation like many things do, like turbine steam bypasses and other things.
I'm only guessing though, is what you're saying what they said it does?

It was pretty clear. If you need an analogy - Using a socket wrench to unbolt tires to steal them - bad. Socket wrench refuses to do it. You try to use a socket wrench to unbolt your own tires so you can swap them to winters. The socket wrench refuses to do it because you could be stealing those tires. The socket wrench is useless. Criminals will find a way to convinece the socket wrench that it's not doing that thing and use it to unbolt and steal tires anyway.

I did. It was cheaper over the next two years to purchase it directly than any kind of payment scheme. In Canada they'll take a price of a flip that is say, 1700$ from samsung, say the MSRP is 2400$ at a telco, cut the price in half with a up-front "credit" since they can't do cancellation fees etc, so the phone is 1200$, then have you pay equal payments over 2 years of 50$ a month + whatever expensive plan. Then if you want to keep it, you have to pay the up-front credit of 1200$.

By buying it directly I saved 700$, plus being able to use a much cheaper plan and not locked into a contract. So I probably saved a fair amount more, paying 35$ pe rmonth for the plan rather than the 70$ they want typically.

It's very predatory, trying to conviencep people with less means to have the status / fancy devices that other people have while making their life a lot less affordable and they don't see it.

I'll add they may not even offer better prices. They'll just remove it from the google store and require you to install their store and get more direct advertisements for their crap, and they can make agreements that the software doesn't work without enabling notifications.

I would agree if it was actual competition, where maybe the new stores don't do the same crappy tactics that google does regarding data, but it's not. So I would argue it's not better, it's the exact same thing. Now you'll have extra stores the manage, it'll get more bloated, and I'm sure things won't place nice with each other, and seperating out subscriptions for apps further, and payment portals etc.

It's not going to be better either, for consumers. This isn't competition. I refute that. It's the same service except another company gets a share of it. They're not going to offer us better prices overall, just short term ones to get you to switch over. It's the same game with all the game launches, they want their own egosystem, split everyone up to it, and they offer incentives until they lock you in, then dick with your prices or even access.

All it is, is companies complaining that google gets to exploit, steal peoples data and make a bunch of a money from it, and they want to do it too! It's not fair that only google can!

Zero fucking interest in this as it has nothing to do with making things better or more fair for consumers.

Oh damn I see what happened, you got me. I don't know if you're a person or a bot but that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Also why I use slashdot less and less too.