> The intelligence (knowing what a "risk" actually means) still requires human governance.
Less and less. Why do you trust a human who’s considered 5000 assessments to better understand “risks” and process the next 50 better than the LLM who has internalized untold millions of assessments?
Why can’t they make a custom menu of my most used buttons? That would be real user customization, not a reel of my top listened songs. Or better still, let me make my own Player layout.
Today, I find the UI downgrade buries Offline, Playback, Settings, One more layer deeper, behind a circle that has the first letter of my username.
The entire argument follows from a single incredible, unsubstantiated assumption, that “creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists.”
If the top ten takeaways are ok using incredibly vaporous, non-sensical phrasing why would I dig any deeper?
“the number of AI incidents and controversies has increased 26 times since 2012”
Ok but how many “incidents,” also detectably fake deepfakes and call-monitoring inmates are top examples of misuse? Naive.
“BLOOM’s training run emitted 25 times more carbon than a single air traveler on a one-way trip from New York to San Francisco”
What does this mean? That sounds like a very small amount to me but the conclusion is that’s a huge environmental impact. No, I read, for the carbon cost of decommissioning one old jet, we can have a new LLM.
If any Spotify devs are here, please let me explore and add songs, artists and albums to my library without “hearting” it.
I often just want to follow up later by “adding to my library,” and it feels weird to “LOVE” it before ever hearing it.
I really feel pain when I hear something terrible that I’ve already “liked” and consider the impacts to my algorithm.
Please distinguish between “like” and “save.”
A simple “plus sign” or really any other symbol that signifies “adding to a collection” without “liking” connotations (stars are out too).
> The intelligence (knowing what a "risk" actually means) still requires human governance.
Less and less. Why do you trust a human who’s considered 5000 assessments to better understand “risks” and process the next 50 better than the LLM who has internalized untold millions of assessments?