Indeed.
@[email protected] - moreso tactfully pointing out we must be aware of credential inflation and to avoid reliance on appeals to authority?
The naïve optimist in me wants the @[email protected] of the world to keep on revealing their backgrounds as it adds to discussions for me. Disappointing that I should be more skeptical.
What did he say?
Dang it
Thank you
& yellowish for birb friends like San Jose, CA?
Are middle class American 2000s babies going to suffer?
(Gut feel is 2050 is gonna be ruff)
Could you add another Associated Press link in case someone misses the first two?
We did it, classic
Let’s produce marginally less data - tracker removed:
I bet Kim Dotcom was given quite a scare by this headline.
Are you getting better deals with the India setting?
Funny and accurate
Those poor girls.
Am I wrong to think the FBI probably has somebody claim there’ll be another 9/11 like twice a day? Skirting background checks though should be an obvious thing to check out.
If not… maybe they’re being compensated accordingly. We can hope.
So if you’re a hiring manager and someone has experience working for him but doesn’t fawn over him, maybe you give them some serious credit and figure they were probably decent at their job plus they can work with anybody.
Welll
May 17, 2014
They can also do intelligent searching and simply surface links.
Do I trust LLM summaries? Not fully. But how about the strategy used by an app like BeyondPDF for Mac:
Think: Firefox does the search, then gives you the sources and the most likely relevant excerpts from each. Consequences of it searching wrong? A small waste of time, but no misinfo.
Sidebar!
One can be against environmental costs of great machine-learning powered search, and offended by the arguable IP theft that created the tools, but it’s unlikely all those who say they “don’t want AI anything!” really mean that entirely.
“I don’t want or need the current version of ChatGPT for my use cases” is very fair though. Maybe they don’t have any SQL queries or Excel formulas - on the edge of their abilities - to build, or text to beautify, or quirky esoteric philosophy to bounce off a robot…
I agree it gets complex for users. But pushing back a bit, wouldn’t we instead say:
We could tell new users “Sign up on Lemmy.com and if you decide you
don’t like the UIaren’t a pedophile justchoose an alternative and use the same credentials to sign inmake sure you start blocking.”
I have in mind that the top blocked instances are pedo oriented. Also seems like it would create a liability issue for servers mirroring that content.
Although it’s not a perfect solution to choose a default instance for new users, I do think it’s a powerful question to eliminate.
Can also make better money without looking like the bad guy by only releasing a small portion of tickets for general sale. Sell the rest offline to brokers who will put them on the secondary market.
Scalpers look like the bad guys while you rake in what you feel you deserve - and even have the market’s apparent willingness to pay to back it up.
I mute a few more non-English accounts each time I use Mastodon