Well. Tricked is one word. They sell you a device with a wibbly-wobbly Terms of Service that will stop you from using the thing you bought if you don't agree with whatever is in there. And that does not even count the fact that they INTENTIONALLY make it long and unreadable for most users and try to put it on the most inconvenient place and time so you accept it to keep life going.
Not exactly on top of it but I had a related conversation the other day.
People at my work were talking poor of gen z and how they are bulk of neets and how they are lame and etc.
There is always some cringe in different generations apart, but even being older, I can empathise with them.
You have zero forecast to buy a home for yourself, to buy a car, to even pay for a university. Whatever they want to do, they will be sucked dry, even if it is a video game.
The f our generation is doing. We are being evil towards the elderly and the young.
We blame the rich, the game, the system. All of them we power of our utmost selfishness, transfering the guilty for someone like we couldn't do anything about it.
Technically it is. But they create companies that operates for months and close and then open a new one using a different person's name.
You can't do anything because between you find them and sue them they are closed and the data is elsewhere.
This is no child's play. The ads you see all around are designed for you not to click. They just want to inject more metadata to make you more identifiable.
Once I followed one of those fake stories like "look what happen with this pregnant horse" and it was literally 50+ pages of a possibility ai generated story that never ended. If you just moved to the main site the story was hosted the content was completely different and no link to the thing you were reading.
Why would anyone pay an ad for something like that? It needs to have a reason and I don't think it is to talk 52 pages about a horse who was pregnant
Nothing is blocking them to spread their tech on other brands and vendors, making ghost data operator companies and aggregating it on complex layers that only produces information without the whole data.
The law that regulates it and all the validation process is flawed and they know it.
Both flck and pltr uses a loophole on the law that if no one holds data no one is doing anything wrong.
This needs to be fixed.
Holding information about people should have a maximum time limit and should be treated respectfully.
Given it is impossible to make them stop, it should be easy to see what's on you and anything else is illegally obtained.
The only part of the message I think it would be interesting to the author: what if you set two instances to prove each other arguments wrong considering that each reads one of the report as their POV?
I didnt see the full process but I used unet models for tumor detection so I am somewhat familiar with the possible caveats of any evaluation from a engineer perspective.
First, I would like to point that unfortunately, it is not uncommon to go to two different human doctors and also get two unreliable diagnosis and treatment. The biggest problem, in the way people plan to use ai on health is the lack of liability.
A bug on a regular old web site doesn't kill anyway nor cause pain and suffering (most of the times) but misdiagnosis + the fact that a model is very good on presenting arguments even when it is completely wrong.
Claude code, and I am talking about opus 4.8 here, can tell rivers of information about code pattern and develop the poopiest code the next line.
This is a machine that will deliver a sort of templates document based on the input information but it is not exactly doing the work if you don't directly it to do it right constantly.
Because the model isn't thinking I wonder what happens if you set multiple agents to communicate and defend their point with some sort of harsh penalty prompt for not fulfilling its goal. There are some safety system prompts on Claude models that will trigger it to be very carefully to write. Like: you cannot make mistakes. "You need to ensure that it is correct or someone might end up hurt or even dead"
But you would need two agents and a setup to communicate via pipes or files.
This will limit a lot how much they can invest in a model. Because of it is better than the current it will have less and less users until only the government can use it.
I've worked with infra resources in that region. The prices of hardware never made sense. Not sure if it's taxes or something, but I'm sure a poor city hall won't be able to afford 250 GPUs for R&D in cutting-edge tech.
It seems to me this is clearly a mistake. They would not even have the resources for it as far as I know and I think they are not even on a position to such bold claims.
True but this is probably because now they have much more demand as other competitors got to expensive and now people are going for the smaller ones even with low service levels