air7

I remember doing something like this in the ancient era of GPT 3 or 4. I just told it that it was a terminal responding to commands and it was surprisingly consistent.

In this context that isn't the right question.

Rather one should ask "Would you be able to answer any question and fulfill any request about the Grand Canyon given to you by others in a way that will be indistinguishable from someone who has been to the Grand Canyon"

With the risk of giving a spoiler, it seems the correct answer is almost always the longer, more elaborate one.

I would guess this causes an up shift in results even if not consciously noticed.

I don't get it.

The IRS sees a clean million dollars in your bank account. They ask "how did you get that?" You answer "Oh I just sold this super expensive thing on a marketplace". Then they ask "Ok, but how did you get/buy this expensive thing?" What do you say?

we didn't really survive photoshop.

The obviously fake ones were easy to detect, and the less obvious ones took some some sleuthing to detect. But the good fakes totally fly under the radar. You literally have no idea how much of the images you see are doctored well because you can't tell.

Same for LLMs in the near future (or perhaps already). What will we do when we'll realize we have no way of distinguishing man from bot on the internet?

Naive question, but can't this be solved with device-level error correction?

But at least you have IKEA

I'd be happy to see that list. Perhaps consider sharing it.

but who will buy the advertised products? and with what money?

A few days ago Sergey Brin said "We don't circulate this too much in the AI community – not just our models but all models – tend to do better if you threaten them … with physical violence"

-- https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/28/google_brin_suggests_...

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I would like .COM domains to ~ 1000$ per year. As these domains are intended (and actually are) used for COMmercial ventures, the sum should be low enough to not be a burden on even a small real business, but be high enough to not be economically viable for squatting.

wow, This is our reality from now on...

I've had this idea that reproduction studies in one's C.V should become a sort of virtue signal, akin to philanthropy among the rich. This way, some percentage of one's work would need to be reproduction work or otherwise they would be looked down upon, and this would create the right incentive to do go.

Sounds like an amazing idea but I installed the windows app from the website and it crashes immediately after opening.

parent comment was a bit tounge-in-cheek but I'll continue the sentiment: You're saying that the curiosity is "natural" hence one is either born with it or not. I think that there is no way around the fact that it will be hard and uncomfortable to mimic the progress of someone that has an innate inclination towards a subject (be it talent or focus or curiosity) artificially.

I know that I'm in the minority, especially here, but I generally welcome paying with my data. it seems to me that companies need to generate revenue and they do this by extracting something of value from the user and that this thing by definition almost would be something the user isn't happy to just hand over: money, watching ads, electricity for mining crypto, personal data etc. It's some form of payment.

for me personally out of all these options giving my data is my least painful payment option for one off services.

I don't know... It's like claiming that Samsung "enhanced their phone camera abilities" when they replaced zoomed-in moon shots with hi-res images of the moon.

https://www.samsungmobilepress.com/feature-stories/how-samsu...

How time flies. I remember I wrote a zero-knowledge AI bookmarklet that did quite well...

http://stackoverflow.com/a/23853848/632039

Just to clarify: The photos and audio collection isn't related to the mentioned security flaws. These are two separate issues.

> Ecovacs robot vacuums, which have been found to suffer from critical cybersecurity flaws... > An Ecovacs spokesperson confirmed the company uses the data collected as part of its product improvement program to train its AI models.

Arguably most humans can't do this either.

My optimistic take on this is that the politicians of the time had the actual peoples' best interests at heart and realized that even though the change was unpopular, it was the right thing to do and that people would eventually realize that. I'm sure very few of those 83% held their opinion a few years after the change.

Also 83% is really a lot... While seemingly obviously correct now, the vast majority didn't see it that way then. I can only assume that If I was there I would be against it too.

Nowadays with mass media and powerful almost immediate public reaction to government, such "you'll thank me later" moves seem less likely, and arguably, we are worse off for it.

I don't know to reconcile the idea that Free Will as a concept obviously cannot exist (because the omnipresent Laws of Physics govern the movement of the particles inside my skull as they do all other particles), with the fact that it just feels so real...

It's clear that technological development creates a shift in jobs, i.e some jobs are lost, but new ones are created as a result. Whether the total #jobs increases or decreases is debatable.

The issue that I see addressed less often is that the new jobs require by definition, a higher skill set. (You wouldn't displace 100 manual labor workers with a machine that requires 105 workers to maintain). So by definition, the average intelligence requirement for jobs increases over time (though never stated directly). This means that as time and technology progress, a growing percentage of people will have no jobs that they are capable of doing. [o]

What's the proper social response to that, I don't know.

[o] If and when AGI comes along, that will be all of us.