if it produces the same text as its response in multiple instances I think we can safely say it's the actual prompt
I've never had the full on "let's be nazis together" invite but I've had several people launch unprompted into "now that it's just us white folks we can talk for real" mode. internally they must have been like "I see white skin, we are clear for takeoff, 54321"
funnily enough it hasn't happened since I became visibly trans
I read the judgement quite carefully and it makes no reference at all to the discovery material. the only evidence it demonstrates awareness of is public or is testimony
it ought to be named philosopher's disease
traveling back in time and teaching the rulers of the british empire about a little thing called literature
if only king leopold had been exposed to the humanities bro 😞
I'm so sick of "if only we had more humanities in education the elites wouldn't be fucking up the world." that has nothing to do with reality, it never has, it never will
we're aiming to do 1% more recycling this year 💪💪💪
my response to ray involves making music with an entirely different organ
start of the article is fine I suppose but it gets pretty bad when it tries to evaluate impact
He explains that "cutting-edge AI capabilities" are now available for every company to buy for the price of standard software. But that instead of building a whole AI system, he says many firms are simply popping a chatbot interface on top of a non-AI product.
the implication here that there exists a viable company buying "cutting-edge AI capabilities" "for the price of standard software" and "building a whole AI system" with them is comical but goes unexamined
"If I asked a room of people what their definition of AI is, they would all give a different answer,” he says. “The term is used very broadly and loosely, without any clear point of reference. It is this ambiguity that is allowing AI washing to emerge.
no it isn't. the article opens with a clear counterexample. if the ambiguity didn't exist Amazon still could have lied about using ai, easily
"AI washing can have concerning impacts for businesses, from overpaying for technology and services to failing to meet operational objectives the AI was expected to help them achieve."
ok, businesses can be impacted
Meanwhile, for investors it can make it harder to identify genuinely innovative companies.
ok, investors can be impacted... hard to be sympathetic to them but sure
And, says Mr Ayangar: "If consumers have unmet expectations from products that claim to offer advanced AI-driven solutions, this can erode trust in start-ups that are doing genuinely ground-breaking work."
and consumers, ok, we've gone through all three types of entities that exist.
wait, what about workers? what about people being policed? what about people trying to interact with government programs using these products? why is only the holy trinity of capitalism worth mentioning?
But in the longer term, says Advika Jalan, head of research at MMC Ventures, the problem of AI washing may subside on its own.
"AI is becoming so ubiquitous - even if they’re just ChatGPT wrappers - that 'AI-powered' as a branding tool will likely cease to be a differentiator after some time," she says. "It will be a bit like saying 'we’re on the internet'."
exercise: rewrite this passage to be about crypto
the faster training data gets polluted the faster ai companies get fucked. therefore, I propose the deliberate creation of unmarked ai compost piles on reddit and discord: "communities" managed so as to minimize visibility to humans while generating large quantities of shit data
does anyone know how to short utils