![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/44bf11eb-4336-40eb-9778-e96fc5223124.png)
No. I also checked to see if I refused any cookies too and I didn’t
No. I also checked to see if I refused any cookies too and I didn’t
I haven’t noticed it being small. Any app recommendations?
Oh, hah sorry! thanks, I didn’t realise that the reddit link pointed to the glue thing
This doesn’t mean that there are reddit comments suggesting putting glue on pizza or even eating glue. It just means that the implementation of Google’s LLM is half baked and built it’s model in a weird way.
Google AI suggested you put glue on your pizza because a troll said it on Reddit once…
Genuine question: do you know that’s what happened? This type of implementation can suggest things like this without it having to be in the training data in that format.
Yes, thank you! I think this should be written in capitals somewhere so that people could understand it quicker. The answers are not wrong or right on purpose. LLMs don’t have any way of distinguishing between the two.
What does this have to do with AI and with what OP said? Their point was obviously about limitations of the software, not some lament about critical thinking
the modern internet has existed without google much less than it has with google
immediately move on to even more anti consumer ways
but they’ll keep collecting that data even after the slap on the wrist which will be more like a gentle tap
I’m saying musk has never believed in the free market in his life and has never argued in good faith.
isn’t this the definition of hypocrisy?
I think that what you’re sayin is that actions of hypocrites cannot be considered hypocritical since ours their nature to be hypocrites. It’s all a bit circular, isn’t it?
I think that in the case of Mr. Musk, the issue is that he has been seen as an innovator not just as a capitalist for much of his time in the spotlight. For 2018 Musk, this declaration would have been hypocritical. For 2024 Musk, whatever, why are we still listening to this clown?
you’re attributing a state of fact to a cause that has nothing to do with it. I’m not nitpicking, i’m pointing out a fallacy: the effect doesn’t prove the cause, it only works the other way around
what relevance would that have over the time span discussed here?
And no, whatever you read about agile, the development speed comes down to people not to procedure. That’s true even if we disregard the fact that very few companies claiming to use agile actually understand what agile is
The project management approach does not dictate the feature priority. The business dictates the priority. Project management is just a tool
I disagree, this has nothing to do with software development models, It’s all about purpose. If your website must start making money quickly, then you can be sure it will have a payment model regardless of how things are developed. Social media business (and others) translated user growth into investment models: you give us this much money at this “completely made up valuation” and we’ll use it to grow our user-base by this much.
This was possible because interest rates have been very low for the most of the 2010s. This meant that investors would be losing money if they held on to it so they just threw it at “the new tech” hoping something would stick. In the past few years, inflation has driven the interest rates very high and it means that money is not cheap anymore so all these businesses now have to transition to a money making model. That’s all.
54% of Wikipedia pages contain at least one link in their “References” section that points to a page that no longer exists.
It would be interesting to know how many of these references don’t exist anymore and how many have just moved. Web has come a very long way since 2013 and I bet that websites hosting the references have undergone several iterations altering the URLs in some way.
Everything you post has potential to remain forever even if it’s not monetized directly. Cautioning people about it makes sense now and has always made sense.
haven’t all UI changes in most product made things worse lately? The “2010s generation” of software solutions has been growing up on investment rather than profit for a long time and we’ve experienced a weird decade in which getting users was more important than getting money from them. Now we’re seeing the other side in which squeezing profit form each user is more important than retention. All solutions are getting crappier because they not meant evolved for their intended purpose anymore.
Selling you shit has always been the point for echo/alexa. The device is sold at cost and the assistant is “free” because they’re trying to make money from the other side of the business.
It hasn’t worked at all, by the way. This more aggressive version is a last ditch effort to make it profitable. The only ones who managed to make smart speakers profitable are Apple, but that’s because they charge much more for the device
Is it though? The author of this article knows what they’re doing, but a regular person would probably not be as relaxed with some of the threats. I didn’t see this in the article, how does the thief have the ability to contact the victim?