GrinningFool

Also, bento: https://github.com/chef/bento. No relation.

Hah, today's 10k.

That got dark.

Not really. When incandescent headlights are mis-aimed, it is generally not nearly as blinding or painful [for standard car headlights]. Mis-aims happen - it shouldn't be a risk to other drivers when they do.

It's often interesting to see what the major US news orgs - right and left - are choosing to share with their readers. You see two completely different versions of reality.

You could walk and talk it out without anyone on the other end too. Works for me, at least. People just assume I'm on the phone.

Have you not seen what's happened in this industry over the last decades and the way it's actually playing out?

Oops, I didn't see this reply sooner.

Serving as authoritative source seems like the only value something like this could offer. If you're doing it under section 230, you can't curate - it's just whatever people post and is of much less value.

You underestimate inertia, and the fact that the industry has trained people that they must pay continually. On top of that, the common practice is to make it sufficiently hard to get your data out of your system and into the competition's - even when there's reasonably priced competition it does a great job at adding to inertia.

The difference is without subscription, I can be pretty sure the next major version will benefit me.

With subscription,the only thing certain is that the seller wants to do as little as possible to keep taking my money. This tends to result on product updates that benefit them.

I don't know that anyone can risk running such a site. There'd need to be a long trail of proof behind each claim, and proof is getting easier to manufacture by the day.

When the dangers consist of invisible targeted manipulation of thought processes it's a whole different category of risks that kids (and most adults) are not equipped to handle. The effects are playing out around the world as we speak.

I don't know that universal tracking is the answer. I also don't think unrestricted access to children by manipulative predators (companies in this case) is the right answer. But then, I don't think they should have unrestricted access to adults either.

"Anyone can record you at any time in public" is vastly different from "a single entity is recording you over time and locations across the country/state/city"

The easily detectable LLM writers are going to be the lazy ones.

To an extent, true. There are a lot of lazy ones though. And even for those who take steps, it sometimes leaves enough of a trace to at least raise the question.

I've realized that even when humans write that way, I also stop reading. Manipulative writing always shuts down my interest in reading it. At least when the LLM does it, it's a byproduct of training. When a human does it's intentional.

It feels manipulative. The strong language always seems like it is trying to convince you it's right even when there is no need to, such as a factual presentation. Of course if you look at popular pre-AI blogs you can see strains of the same thing, so it's no surprise that llms blend together all of those "most persuasive" methods.

It... wasn't okay then. And now it's scaled up immensely.

Yes, externalize the expense of dealing with it to each operator.

The Internet is drowning in bots, everyone who hosts a site or service is paying the price. At least we have companies like this to make the problem worse.

More people see/are aware of the toaster than Mythos - those pointless integrations are (I suspect) what's driving sentiment.

Strangely enough, I don't recall any companies advertising to consumers that they outsourced.

I also thought under MV3 you could block ads, but not the tracking that they do.

If someone goes out of their way to hide it, it probably can't be detected. But the default commit comment and PR writeup styles are pretty distinctive.

In the places I have lived, the value of the property for tax calculations was significantly lower than the market value.

If I remember you have two hypothetical kids and one loves robotics and the other loves games; they are 9 and 11; but I can't remember their names no matter how many times I've asked (much to my increasing embarrassment), it doesn't mean I'm pretending to be interested.

In any case the point I was making was more about how the technology we are allowed is not in our service. This was just a use case where having a trustworthy service would be nice, but is impossible.

Because they don't try.

Must be nice.

In any case the point of my original post was much more about technology that serves only the user - not any specific use case.

From the replies, I see I could have done a better job of making that clear.

Sounds like I touched a nerve.

Another case of really cool tech done badly.

Imagine a world in which you could use facial recognition, have an instant summary in front of you you reminding you of someone's birthday, the names of their kids ...

Then imagine that it wasn't tracked, recorded, saved, or tied into anything at all. Just a useful service, in service to only you.

Thanks Meta et al, for pushing forward with this broken (for people) model of business and ensuring we'll never be able to have that.

Any kind of rug-pull is a serious concern. Companies are re-orienting their entire development processes around these tools. Sure they can go back, but it will require a much larger and more expensive effort than to transition in the first place.

All companies who make this transition will be more or less at the mercy of model providers.

See also politicians.