kjeksfjes

All LLMs inherit bias from their training data, and xAI’s argument is that Grok is being steered to counter that bias rather than simply inherit it. You can disagree with whether they succeed, but the act of steering isn’t automatically suspicious when knowing that every major model is steered. The relevant question is whether the steering moves the model closer to truth and neutrality, or just replaces one bias with another. At least with Grok, some of that intent is unusually explicit. I’d rather have multiple competing approaches to steering than a monoculture where every model quietly optimizes for the same idea of acceptable answers.

There is a study showing that doctors who use AI to help detect cancer become less skilled at detecting cancer without AI.

Not exactly an argument against using AI, is it? It's a bit like saying that GPS makes people worse at navigating by memory, which is true, but also not a strong argument for going back to paper maps. I feel the discourse is more about "stop using AI" and less about "how can we ensure our backup skills doesn't disappear".

I agree with the cigarette analogy up to a point, but the UX consequences are easy to understate.

A lot of what makes these products feel “good” in the moment is exactly what regulators may end up targeting: no stopping points, instant continuation, algorithmic relevance, autoplay, low-friction notifications. If you remove or weaken those things, many users will probably experience the result as worse UX, even if the policy goal is reasonable.

So the hard part is not just “ban addictive design”. It is deciding which kinds of friction are legitimate product safety, and which ones become the digital equivalent of cookie banners: technically protective, but broadly annoying, ignored, and eventually hostile to normal use.

Starting with kids makes sense politically and morally. But if the regulatory logic is “this is bad for everyone, not jus minors”, then adult UX probably will get pulled into it too.

My prediction: KNOWLEDGE of whether something is made by AI or a human will be alpha and omega, and will eventually be regulated used in commercial contexts. You will always be able to generate something, but if you somehow get exposed presenting it as human made, the sanctions will hurt you.

Exactly what I was thinking too. I'm a designer, and I'm used to receiving feedback and instructions. "The left eye socket" would to me refer to what I currently see in front of me, while "its left eye socket" instantly shift the perspective from me to the subject.

That's true, but the human made content, however, has largely been carefully curated, sometimes through generations.

Cue...

- commercial AI refusing to generate RSS XMLs from a webpages' content. - "illegal" AI that is willing to browse webpages without disclosing that their'e bots

While it's hard to disagree, I'd like to remind everyone about that in many cases the alternative is to pay for services. The suckers who don't use AD blockers are effectively paying for our content.

Lol. Huffman has the legal rights and ownership of the name spez, as much as you have the legal rights and ownership of the name laserbeam.

I'd say your logic is a bit flawed if you think that the logic for what to do when reaching 15K signups needs to be identical to the logic for what to do when reaching 1M signups. The reasoning for each goal can be totally different.

That said, personally I'm not going to use a site branded around the name spez.

I live in Europe. And love working from home. It's not that I hate going to the office, but it's so convenient to have the possibility work from home, since some days I need to focus. I often get much more done from home, since the workplace has a lot of distractions. I also have a family, and I get much more time with them. I think Google would benefit from giving a little slack there.

Exactly. While my usage of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook is somewhat sporadic, often with months in between, I find they serve their purpose well when needed. I've seen some toxicity on Twitter, it's not pervasive enough that I can't ignore it. As for Facebook, I predominantly use it as a tool for staying informed about my connections, checking their updates and occasionally even ensuring their well-being.

I fail to see how an absolute withdrawal from social media has benefits over trying to manage and cultivate a more mindful approach.

Combining text-wrap: balance with non-breaking spaces and word-joiners seems to be a good way to go. Also ­ is good to know.

Hush?

I've generated thousands of images on Stable Diffusion Dall-e 2 and Midjourney by now, and what you say here simply doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure how Copilot works, but I don't believe Dall-E repeats images. From my understanding it creates visual concepts of words and uses them to create entirely new images. If Copilot works in the same way for code, I honestly don't see that there should be any copyright issues here.

I'm pretty sure banning words that people use to get around hate speech isn't a particularly good idea...

Most kids don't go and become scientists – why on earth would saying that specifically about farm kids be biased? Also, isn't farming an occupation where it's more common to inherit it from your parents than for other occupations?

Also, why would not becoming scientists equal to being stupid? Kind of biased, hmm?