Care to point out anything on the page that’s factually incorrect?
It sounds like you consider it to be cancer because someone with whom you don’t agree is involved with it, but that doesn’t really provide a good reason why the article should be dismissed without even reading it.
We know that Grok, like other LLMs, is trained on data that is not held to any rigorous standard of knowledge like exists in the fields of journalism or academia.
There is no reason to think that such a system is even capable of determining truth. At best, we might be able to say that it reflects a consensus of opinion, but even that is a stretch given the nature of these systems.
And that ignores the fact that we know that these products are designed to be sycophantic to their users/operators. That is not a recipe for objective knowledge. Especially given what we know about Grok (meddling by Musk).
And to cap it all off, for all of Wikipedia's real or perceived flaws, all of the decision making is done in public view. This is very much not the case with Grok.
It's dystopian and obviously so. Your comment about "Luddite mentality" is farcical on its face. Of you, I might say something like... "techbro mentality", or maybe even something less flattering.
And of course a pro-white-supremacist biased LLM is going to falsely exonerate a racist like James Watson with the same pro-racist biases that Elon Musk programmed it with.
And timonoko also regularly posts Grok generated AI slop bullshit, and even pretends to be a FORTH programmer by having Grog generate code that doesn't do anything like what he claims it does, which should be obvious if he even glanced at the code he was posting. I'd hate to see the kind of Grok-generated buggy crap he unwittingly checks into source code control.
It's strange that timonoko is so compelled to virtue signal so often that he shares Musk's and Grok's racist views. But at least now we know what kind of person he is.
Imagine if we sent Senagal $10M per day in tax payer money and questioning it led to your own politicians labeling you as "anti-senagalese" and being ousted from every political party.
"The demand, which would require Google and Amazon to effectively sidestep legal obligations in countries around the world"
"Like other big tech companies, Google and Amazon’s cloud businesses routinely comply with requests from police, prosecutors and security services to hand over customer data to assist investigations."
The way I interpret this is Google, Amazon operates in multiple countries under multiple jurisdictions. The security services for any of these countries(including for example Egypt where Google has offices according to....Google), can produce a legal(in Egypt) order requesting Google to produce data of another customer( for example Israeli govt) and Google has to comply or leave Egypt.
It seems to me that being under constant threat of your government sensitive data being exposed at the whims of another, potentially adversarial government is not a sustainable way of operating and Im surprised that Israel havent either found ways of storing its infrastructure locally or encrypting it five way to Sunday.
This is not a comment on the specific accusation of actions by Israel but for strange reality of being a small-country government and a customer of a multi-national cloud vendor.
Also I think the piracy experience has improved significantly. Jellyfin + Infuse makes the watching experience just as good, if not better than, the streaming apps. You get the same nice scrolling interface, trailers, automatic subtitles and it feels just as good as the Netflix app. Except it’s all the content you actually want, nothing you don’t, and there are no ads.
>Google told employees that it would no longer set diversity hiring targets
Diversity hiring targets are by definition discrimination based on immutable characteristics. How is equality in the hiring process “fascist”?
Apple has a similar (illegal) hiring policy.
>Apple’s Vice President of Core OS – Software Engineering, Jon Andrews
>We’ve made some changes to the way we do manager hiring … There’s two questions at the top of an offer when it goes to approval. One is that a female was interviewed and that a URE [underrepresented employee] was interviewed. And … for management positions, I have said that I won’t approve an offer unless there’s a yes next to one of those.
To be honest I’ve been having the opposite experience. There are lots of cool niche playlists on YouTube that cater to specific ideas.
Like “40’s gangster jazz”, or “studying in the Hogwarts library”, etc
It’s the majority of what I listen to lately and it’s been pretty good.
On a related note, I was working with someone recently and he put on a jazz playlist he found on YouTube. We both enjoyed the music and neither of us realized it was AI until about halfway through the playlist.
I don’t think it’s a big deal that it’s AI, as long as you enjoy the music.
Given today is Diwali, perhaps the reason everything went down is because the best and brightest from India were all on vacation and weren't there to babysit/roll back the deployment that broke everything?
We’ve reached a point where I can no longer distinguish between people without experience and people repeating the talking points they’re told to repeat. That’s a major loss.
However, talent is a very small part of shipping a project. How that talent is resourced is far more important.
Another smashing success. It is cool that they've started adding more explanations and nice footage leading up to the launch. Explaining some of the improvements they are testing out like the crunchwrap heat tiles, I enjoyed the "Live Mas" joke he snuck in there.
Just incredible overall to watch and very inspiring. Few things give me hope for the future like these videos do.
Reminder that we have enough nuclear fuel to power all of humanity with zero emissions for hundreds of years. Anyone who’s talking about this issue and not pushing nuclear is likely trying to use it as a political tool instead of actually trying to solve the problem.
Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions. If we committed to building out nuclear today, we'd get our first one online in about 20 years. We need about 1000 of them in the US, which would take a lot longer than 20 years.
>If we committed to building out nuclear today, we'd get our first one online in about 20 years.
Only true because of the regulatory burden imposed by the government on their construction, there's nothing about the design or construction of the plants which takes that long.
Look at China, it takes them about 6 years to build a nuclear power plant. Politicians have been using climate change as a political tool for decades, if they had started pushing the construction of these plants back when they first started talking about the issue we could have been bringing enough power plants online by now to already have solved the problem.
In Sweden when the green party met the conservatives in a debate over replacing existing oil power plant with a nuclear power plant, the green leader said something like this:
"The oil burning power plant is a natural part of the reserve energy plan, and replacing it with nuclear would be way too expensive."
After that debate, the green party (in combination with their other coalition parties) has now green lit the construction of a new natural gas power plant, as part of the strategy of using wind and solar during optimal weather conditions and fossil fuels in poor weather conditions. This strategy goes under the long-term plan of using green hydrogen in the future. Currently there exist a experiment of using green hydrogen for steel production, which has yet to become economical viable, and experts in the field of green hydrogen is predicting around ~50 years until green hydrogen may become economical viable for electricity production. Until then the plan is to continue expanding the fleet of fossil fuel burning power plants.
To me its very obvious who is trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years. It is those that fund, approve and build new ones. The people responsible for those decisions are responsible for the fossil fuels that will get burned, and in turn delaying implementation of non-fossil fueled solutions.
> Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions.
This claim explains a lot about our previous interactions. It's also the polar opposite of my experience.
I have never heard a single advocate of nuclear advocating for fossil fuels, and I certainly don't do it myself. I've also never heard them speak against solar (and again I also don't do this). It's purely about defending nuclear from fear-mongering and trying to make it possible faster, rather than being crushed under ridiculous and unjustified regulations.
I'm all for nuclear, specifically nuclear fusion, specifically the great big fusion reactor in the sky that bathes the Earth in more free energy in a day than we as a planet use in a year.
Eh. Not really anymore. Except at extreme latitudes, solar + battery now beats Nuclear on year round cost and especially on time to installation. It's only going to get more stark as time passes.
I don’t think the next administration, whichever party ends up winning, will be likely to reverse these tariffs just based on how much revenue they bring in for the federal government.
Reducing spending is of course another different problem altogether.
It raises taxes but arguably impacts GDP in a very direct and equal way, so it mostly nets out. The argument that follows from there would be that taxing the rich would have less of an impact on GDP.
It sounds like you consider it to be cancer because someone with whom you don’t agree is involved with it, but that doesn’t really provide a good reason why the article should be dismissed without even reading it.
reply