blharr

Any fallout or monetary changes you could sue for, a company like Meta can probably pay for and still turn their huge profits. It seems like these companies do little to hide their shady actions at all.

The comment above is completely wrong, and Im not sure how they got that misconception unless it's an AI fabrication (although it doesnt read like AI)...

Turtle WoW had nothing rougelike about it at all. It was the normal classic WoW experience with added content. I suppose you could say it did a lot different from other roguelikes... because it wasn't one at all

While that answers their direct question, they do bring up a good point -- how often are you handing out less than 25% scores on exams? Id imagine any professor to do that to get some severe criticism that would make even a cheater pretty livid

[flagged]

Sure but is LinkedIn even a good place for that networking? Email feels way more productive (and personal) for that

They're boiling the frog pretty quickly, honestly. The token usage has clearly been an issue since using Claude code from the beginning. It just blows through tokens

Most social media is actively against that, feeding you recommendations to keep you on the platform.

And it will affect good engineers and turn them into worse engineers too

AI benefits rely on these good engineers having 5, 10, 20 years of experience pre-AI designing (and fully, thoroughly understanding) these systems. What's going to happen to that engineering skill after 15 years of AI use?

>Products/companies that no longer exist because OpenAI, or AI in general, made them obsolete

What would you place here anyways? Chegg and Stack Overflow?

There aren't a lot of highly technical audiobooks or ones that give the same specificity that would be the same as an academic paper

What is meant by "cools down quicker"?

Will near-boiling water drop 10 temperature points in a shorter time than the warm water? Yes.

Will it reach 10C faster than the warm water? No.

Not the original reply, but I support the correction here. Regardless of how pedantic/nitpicking it seems, I remember getting confused about this a lot when learning digital signal processing. Simply because its really easy to upsample.. or look at an upsampled result and get confused by that

It's a completely grotesque point you've got. Tiles are advertised as used for personally tracking your devices. To the average person its the same technology as a Bluetooth earbud. Not a device for tracking at a central whatever 100 companies want that data.

And for 2... thats completely irrelevant. "More or less"? So... a hundred of millions of tiles still out there is "more or less"?

The task of helping to find wording that conveys your thoughts could mean several methods. It could mean you one-shot reword prompts and that helps you find wording. Or it could mean you're taking its output more substantially. Or you're going back and forth where the LLM is suggesting and you're suggesting too. It's incredibly vague what portion of "helping" the LLM is doing!

Whereas "search" implies (to me) a kind of direct and analytical process of listing and throwing out brainstormed suggestions, like you would with a search engine.

When I read the human version I actually get a sense of what that process looks like, and the LLM response definitely clouds or changes it by focusing on the result instead.

Sure, but even the specific case isn't about TOS within the limits of screen time or online browsing. It's about tracking your physical location via Tile trackers. Sure, you can get off streaming services, but you're still signing a TOS or waiver by using any service. Meta/Google/etc has a profile on you even if you've never logged in based on others sharing their contacts and pictures that may include you.

It is

The problem is that this becomes a race to the bottom of actual quality and turns into advertising.

Sponsored reviews of products are basically this. If you are paying a reviewer for a stamp of approval and the reviewer sets the bar too high, why would you want to pay that reviewer? On the other end of the reviewer, it's easy to get more money by providing that stamp of approval to more people--not fewer--so they're incentivized to make it fairly easy to achieve.

Ideally, yes? Or a reference ticket number pointing to that discussion

The main limitation is the human effort to compile that information, but if the LLM already has the transcript ready, its free

"LLMs are good at [task I'm not good enough at to tell the LLM is bad at]" is becoming common

I don't get the point of this argument. Yes, the people who buy pinhole cameras are creeps too

980 items being shipped then destroyed versus 1000 items being destroyed.

It's 980(x+y) instead of 1000(x)

I have no knowledge of the tradeoffs, but I might also imagine that the method of destruction could be worse: incineration vs landfill vs thrown in the ocean, etc

Except being destroyed locally in a controlled or regulated process and shipped to be destroyed overseas with more relaxed regulations are not equal footprint wise

AI is a big driver of literal direct physical corruption. Language and knowledge is forever tainted because of an outpouring of AI generated spam. Evaluating resumes is more difficult now because you can't tell real impacts versus fabricated hallucinations. Open source projects are overwhelmed with AI generated PRs...

Any corruption is emboldened by AI, it's a catalyst of the problem, doesn't seem anywhere close to potentially being a fix

The breeze is more like a 2 ton harvester expertly engineered to knock your tree down.

What's stopping the price from being extremely low? Plenty might pay $1 to take a bundle of 1000 items of clothing, pick through it and find 20 items they like, then destroy the 980 other items.

Not quite when you are burning a ton of fuel to ship them overseas to arrive in the burn pit.

Maybe, but it could also just be self promotion by the owner of this 'agent'. They've set it up to contribute to a bunch of open source big projects. They probably want the ability to say "I've contributed XX PRs for large open source projects"

I think most of it is them not having a way to know if the contribution was completely autonomous or directed by a human.

So they're defaulting to being as explanatory as possible because they don't want to give a rudely abrupt reply even if the poster is abusing AI

That post also looks suspiciously like AI slop

Sure, but the ID solution is an "if everyone just gives up their privacy / anonymity / sensitive data" and the mechanism is by denial of service

In fact its worse. Every site must also implement this security check. Or everyone must agree to just use sites and services that follow this policy. Otherwise anyone can just use another, often 'less safe' website.