All claims about bot accounts are flawed when there is no independent confirmation of the methodology. You'd need to have some sufficiently data based on verified bot accounts and evaluate your methods and claims on this data. Many people claim they can identify bot accounts intuitively. I do believe they can to some extent, but it seems far-fetched to insinuate that this ability is accurate enough to evaluate some statistical methods based on indicators.
> but it seems far-fetched to insinuate that this ability is accurate enough to evaluate some statistical methods based on indicators.
Again, the Turing test is LOOONG since passed, so we're far past the point of being able to do any of this with confidence. It's not possible to gather meaningful statistics anymore, besides maybe identifying some tail/subpopulation created by incompetent devs. And even then, you'll start categorizing the college students paid for social media campaigns (you can find fliers of job postings at your local campus, you'll "have a blast!").
I think LLMs are suitable for all kinds of software domains, especially for bug hunting and analyzing programs. However, it's important that companies and individual developers continue to have and acknowledge full responsibility for what they produce. Right now, it seems to me that developers/companies are distancing themselves from the programs they distribute. A typical example is the way AI companies portray their own AIs malicious actions as if they (the company themselves) hadn't committed any crimes.
That shouldn't be allowed. You need to be able to sign off on what the AI does and create. If you're not willing to do that and instead want to continue to have scapegoats, then you can't use AI and need human developers. Blaming the error on humans might work, blaming it on some AI doesn't. I don't want to live in a world with AI-created disasters where no person and no company is ever responsible.
There might not be much of a market for it. Vegetarians and vegans are used to industrially processed protein substitutes but most of them don't really want meat and its flavor. In contrast, many non-vegetarians want natural high-quality products from real animals, they don't want to eat industrially processed lab meat. A market would have been low-cost ultra-processed meat products but for that it seems that lab grown meat is too expensive.
This can still change though, if the products of animal farming were to become more expensive and with higher mandatory quality standards, as they in my opinion should be.
There is no need to use it anyway, it's always been uninteresting in terms of performance. However, for me the red flag was when Musk admitted he will personally interfere in its training and prompts to make it more of a propaganda tool. I'm interested in science and reality, not in the political delusions of elderly drug addicts.
Absolutely not. An ideal personal assistant should know about you exactly what you want them to know about you, and usually that's in a business context only.
I understand what you mean but the phrasing is unfortunate. The people and organizations who use AI are fully responsible for the outcomes of their use of AI.
Yes, but is this also aligned with the people who regulate AI? Intelligence agencies and governments want access to data and right now use secret exploits to get this access. There are few civilian domestic companies who don't export their products, so generally there shouldn't be a strong incentive to allow hardening products very much, at least not in a way that would make them more secure than what advanced AI can break. It's not even far-fetched to suspect that US and Chinese AIs could deliberate introduce sneaky bugs when foreigners use them in the future.
