noorbeast

@noorbeast@lemmy.zip

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Do you use uBlock Origin on Chrome? You'll soon have to use another ad blocker⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Just an observation, if a corporate entity restricts you from using the security measures you specificity choose, that speaks volumes as to why you should be skeptical as to the motives and offerings of that corporate entity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Logitech has an idea for a “forever mouse” that requires a subscription⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Perhaps I am incredibly naive, but for me a “Forever mouse” is something you buy, own, and have control absolute over!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Minimum !⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  And there is angst re AI hallucinating, seems that also affects HR.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Any public data exchange has an element of risk, but the management/priority of that risk relates to tour relevant risk matrix/profile.

  Any exposed data transverses via a provider, be it mobile or Wi-Fi. If you are concerned about provider vulnerabilities and exposure, be it Wi-Fi or mobile, use a VPN and related encryption.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bots dominate internet activity, account for nearly half of all traffic⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It will get worse with AI joining the fray!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I will repeat what I have proffered before, along with associated discussions:

  If OpenAI stated that it is impossible to train leading AI models without using copyrighted material, then, unpopular as it may be, the preemptive pragmatic solution should be pretty obvious, enter into commercial arrangements for access to said copyrighted material.

  Claiming a failure to do so in circumstances where the subsequent commercial product directly competes in a market seems disingenuous at best, given what I assume is the purpose of copyrighted material, that being to set the terms under which public facing material can be used. Particularly if regurgitation of copyrighted material seems to exist in products inadequately developed to prevent such a simple and foreseeable situation.

  Yes I am aware of the USA concept of fair use, but the test of that should be manifestly reciprocal, for example would Meta allow what it did to MySpace, hack and allow easy user transfer, or Google with scraping Youtube.

  To me it seems Big Tech wants its cake and to eat it, where investor $$$ are used to corrupt open markets and undermine both fundamental democratic State social institutions, manipulate legal processes, and undermine basic consumer rights.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The simple solution is to then enter into commercial arrangements before accessing the required copyrighted material.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I get what the author is trying to say, that in many respects people go about their day in a form of autocomplete mode, that is guided by our assumptions about the world, and to an extent I agree, but that is different from a LLM, that is auto completing based on learned probability from patterns in a data set.

  I say that because if you break social norms, say getting up into the face and staring at people in a lift, they will try and perpetuate their autocomplete mode functions for a short while, then break from them. In contrast an LLM will just hallucinate, or to put it more bluntly, ‘make shit up’ when faced with a dilemma, rather than genuinely adapt to novel circumstances…