I am a small sample to confirm that’s exactly the reason in my brother’s company.

And in my company we’re pressured to make X prompts every week to the company’s own ChatGPT wrapper to show we’re being productive. Even our profit shares have a KPO attached to that now. So many people just type “Hello there” every morning to count as another interaction with the AI.

My brother said his superior asked him to use more AI auto complete so that they can brag to investors that X percent of the company’s code is written by AI. This told me everything about the current state of this bullshit.

In reality, this doesn’t affect the existing batteries we have, it’s just for future battery technology.

it’s his platform, he can do whatever he wants on it, he paid a lot of money for it. […] I really don’t get why this would upset anyone

lol

1. Champions “free speech” to justify buying Twitter in a legitimate way.
2. Wins over idealists who think they’re fighting for openness, calling it a “public square”, “Greek Agora” etc.
3. Bans critics and content he just doesn’t align with.
4. Gets called out.
5. “Whoa whoa, I meant my free speech. The rest of you? Peasants.”
6. People leave the platform: “I don’t get why this upsets anyone, it’s his platform”.

This reminds me of the behavior most common in subreddits such as /r/Bitcoin, we can even put it side by side:

• Step 1: Preach a grand ideal — “X is the free speech Agora!” / “Bitcoin is your path to financial freedom!”
• Step 2: Rally support by moralizing it — “If you’re against this, you’re against liberty!” / “Only fools ignore Bitcoin!”
• Step 3: When the consequences hit — censorship or market crashes — suddenly the ideal becomes personal: “It’s his platform, he can do whatever he wants.” / “You fool! You shouldn’t have invested more than you can afford to lose.”

This cracked me up.

Yeah, adults should be able to tell the difference between someone disagreeing with them and someone being rude/trolling.

I don’t think I ever needed to block anyone, but I kinda stopped commenting as much nowadays cause I realized a lot of times people just don’t understand something and say things out of ignorance + pretentiousness, immediately attacking whoever correct what they’re saying. I don’t think there’s a way out of that in these kinds of open discussion threads, unfortunately, because it’s not exactly bad faith.

There’s a difference between OpenAI storing conversations and the LLM being able to search all your previous conversations in every clean session you start.

Always has been. Nothing has changed.

The fact that OpenAI stores all input typed doesn’t mean you can make a prompt and ChatGPT will use any prior information as context, unless you had that memory feature turned on (which allowed you to explicitly “forget” what you choose from the context).

What OpenAI stores and what the LLM uses as input when you start a session are totally separate things. This update is about the LLM being able to search your prior conversations and referencing it (using it as input, in practice), so saying “Nothing has changed” is false.

Maybe for training new models, which is a totally different thing. This update is like everything you type will be stored and used as context.

I already never share any personal thing on these cloud-based LLMs, but it’s getting more and more important to have a local private LLM on your computer.

They’re made to be inoffensive and generic, in a way that shelters companies from being sued.

No paywalled link: https://archive.is/1QR8H

It’s more accurate to say they might be, but not necessarily. China is very aware of the benefits of keeping ahead technologically.

Well yeah, but the article is about a paper that’s showing a strategy to improve planning capabilities in comparison to using LLMs as they are currently. It’s just research, they’re not saying to use that in production now, and I’d say it isn’t something the researchers are even worried about for this particular artifact.

I think the problem is there’s just too much work that needs to be put in these things and people don’t really think about it. Android has at this point almost 2 decades of refining the experience for phones, so it’s a good starting point.

But the most important thing I guess is software. People often neglect how much time and effort is put to refine software to the point it becomes polished and bug free. Android has a mature stack to build apps that is very difficult to replicate.

But to be more clear I didn’t mean just getting a degoogled Android and settle with it. Android could also evolve in other ways that aren’t in Google’s interest, such as allowing you to have a sort of Dex that’s actually a Linux Desktop Environment.

It’s much less effort to have something based on Android open source project though.

At this point, I think it’s required to have a sort of alternate identity online and keeping anything private, photos of yourself and other information just offline. Except for government stuff, which requires your real identity.

Brace yourselves, because this is only going to get worse with the current “vibe coding” trend.

I’m starting to think my parents who are already reaching their 70s are lucky people.

Only those that criticize the government, somehow. “Oops, because of some complicated algorithm, it only affected people who posted the word ‘orange’ on social media recently.”

Not only that, the Android Police article mentions they had a lot of trouble merging the internal branches and the public branches, so I’m guessing as time went on they’ve diverged more and more.