Funny that these are the same people that have been blasting the alarm on dangers of AI singularity. Now they cannot wait to put their tools in weapons.
Readit Newslevanten commented on An AI agent published a hit piece on me theshamblog.com/an-ai-age... · Posted by u/scottshambaugh
levanten commented on Are Apple gift cards safe to redeem? daringfireball.net/linked... · Posted by u/tosh
To put this as plainly as I possibly can:
1. It is objectively true that Apple and Google accounts are extremely important to many people.
2. It is also objectively true that most users will only need one of each, a few at most. Fraudsters have no such limitations, and may want to create thousands of them per day if the possibility arises.
3. Therefore, it's likely that a significant percentage of all accounts ever created are fraudulent, even if the actual number of fraudsters is much lower. This is the crucial observation many people miss in this debate.
4. Real users do not want constant iMessage spam and other problems resulting from fraudulent accounts remaining open. Therefore, normal users care deeply about fraudulent accounts being closed promptly (and so do money-laundering regulators, but that's another discussion).
5. Normal users also care about their accounts remaining open. Apple has to balance these two problems.
6. If we force Apple (by regulation, PR crisis or any other method) to be softer on closures, the only way to do that without exacerbating #4 is to make opening fraudulent accounts harder.
7. The only reliable way of preventing fraudsters from opening accounts is strict and invasive identity verification.
8. Therefore, if we're asking Apple / Google to keep more accounts open, we're also asking for more surveillance.
This may actually be the right tradeoff to make, but it is important to point out that there is a tradeoff here, and that no decision in this regard goes without consequences.
None of this prevents them from providing proper customer service that can resolve cases of false positives.
levanten commented on Why movies just don't feel "real" anymore old.reddit.com/r/movies/c... · Posted by u/Jun8
It's about the new trend of shallow DoF in new movies vs old ones.
I think that is the wrong lesson to take away from the video. As the video emphasizes, DoF is a tool that can be used to achieve an intended effect in story telling.
Main thrust of the video is that these days these tools are predominantly being used for convenience of post-production and cost cutting at the expense of immersion and story telling.
levanten commented on Problems the AI industry is not addressing adequately thealgorithmicbridge.com/... · Posted by u/baylearn
> "This is purely an observation: You only jump ship in the middle of a conquest if either all ships are arriving at the same time (unlikely) or neither is arriving at all. This means that no AI lab is close to AGI."
The central claim here is illogical.
The way I see it, if you believe that AGI is imminent, and if your personal efforts are not entirely crucial to bringing AGI about (just about all engineers are in this category), and if you believe that AGI will obviate most forms of computer-related work, your best move is to do whatever is most profitable in the near-term.
If you make $500k/year, and Meta is offering you $10M/year, then you ought to take the new job. Hoard money, true believer. Then, when AGI hits, you'll be in a better personal position.
Essentially, the author's core assumption is that working for a lower salary at a company that may develop AGI is preferable to working for a much higher salary at a company that may develop AGI. I don't see how that makes any sense.
Being part of the team that achieved AGI first would be to write your name in history forever. That could mean more to people than money.
Also 10m would be a drop in the bucket compared to being a shareholder of a company that has achieved AGI; you could also imagine the influence and fame that comes with it.
levanten commented on U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg3r... · Posted by u/mattcollins
levanten commented on Databricks in talks to acquire startup Neon for about $1B upstartsmedia.com/p/scoop... · Posted by u/ko_pivot
Dumb question - how is this different from Snowflake?
They are very similar; with various similar solutions at differing stages of maturity.
While I am not ready to argue for LLMs in therapy, I know that mental health professionals also feel very much like an echo chamber. At least my experience is that if you confront them with harsh enough reality, they basically fail to provide anything useful. "I feel your pain" isn't really useful, at least not if you are already aware of your situation...
> At least my experience is that if you confront them with harsh enough reality, they basically fail to provide anything useful.
When I started therapy, I felt the same way. But now I realize that there can be no easy solutions offered in therapy; the therapist cannot just give you an argument or trick that will resolve all your troubles. They are there to guide you through figuring it out yourself and help build the necessary habits to sustain the new state. That is why rapport between a therapist and their patient is crucial to success, thus why you are usually recommended to try several alternatives.
I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images.
My settings are:
- [OFF] "Share additional data" - Share data about your Meta devices to help improve Meta products.
- [OFF] "Cloud media" - Allow your photos and videos to be sent to Meta's cloud for processing and temporary storage.
I'm not sure whether my settings would prevent my media from being used as described in the article.
Also, it's not clear which data is being used for training:
- random photos / videos taken
- only use of "Meta AI" (e.g., "Hey Meta, can you translate this sign")
As much as I've liked my Meta Ray Ban's I'm going to need clarity here before I continue using them.
TBH, if it were only use of Meta AI, I'd "get it" but probably turn that feature off (I barely use it as-is).
Just continues to prove that if you solve a bit of inconvenience for them, people will let you exploit them and their families.