Not really. Similar to giving drugs to lower class people so they can bear the unbearable life. For an indiviual, sure, life probably feels better in a narrow sense, but is it more ethical? No.
I’ll be honest, I’d lie my ass off if I was the author.
I don’t eat meat for ethical/health/climate reasons. You bet your ass I’m singing the praises of lab grown meat if I had that kind of platform. Instead, they used their voice to say how icky pretend meat is. It honestly pisses me off lol.
That's just plain lying. And when people actually tasted the meat they'd call your bluff. In fact I have to assume that many have tasted it and have noped out.
More than just calling your bluff they would be rightfully upset with you and also with what you represent. Activisits often fail to understand this and think that their "noble" goal justifies the means.
Interesting to me is the tension between remarks along the lines that this post maybe made sense in 2023, but not today, or how LLMs clearly show intelligence by solving Navier-Stokes, et cetera; versus the comments I read here often as well: "it's just a tool".
I can't quite put my finger on it, but aren't these two statements add odds with each other? Intelligence is hard to define, consciousness even more so, but wouldn't "intelligence" imply some sort of agency? If not, I'd argue computers were intelligent long before the age of LLMs. And likewise, doesn't a tool imply the lack of intelligence and agency, even if the tool's function is very elaborate?
I got the impression that both these statements are made by the same people, or at least people with similar takes on AI. Is that wrong and there are "intelligence" and "tool" factions? Or do people disagree with my assumption and there's nothing wrong with the concept of "intelligent tools"?
Kinda refreshing this discussion, compared to the builder vs. tinkerer debates, imo.
I would think the intelligence aspect is a bit hard to define, but to my mind (having called LLMs tools before), the main utility of a tool is reliability.
Given a certain world state (including a tool's internal state), its effects back on the world state (as initiated by me) are at some leve of description understandable, expected and repeatable. Swing hammer, drive nail into wood. Make slicing motion with knife, cut meat. Type '
find /path/to/some/dir -name "keyword"', find files with keyword. Point harness at codebase with prompt 'fix bug X', actually fix bug X.
All these examples are at some level of description incredibly complex (think of all particles interacting at the (sub-)atomic level even when using a hammer to only drive a nail into some wood), and of course all the electrons flowing through the GPUs doing matrix multiplications in order to fix bug X, but at some level of description (the one I just used) they are also incredibly simple and understandable.
Intelligence is rather nebulous (and as used by OpenAI/Anthropic, quite threatening), but I don't think this definition of a tool precludes it to be "intelligent". They feel more orthogonal. The intelligence (or perhaps capability) feels like it is related to the size of the chunk of the world state that it can take into account and affect, while still resulting in understandable, expected and repeatable effects. LLMs, when properly harnessed, are pretty great at this currently and we are still discovering what they are consistently capable of.
Calling harnessed LLMs tools is perhaps also a more grounding frame specifically to counter-act the anthropomorphizing framing that OpenAI and Anthropic consistently go for in their game of AI-doom-chicken talk. The tool framing is in that sense maybe a (self-)jedi-mind-trick.
Doesn't help obviously if you already lost your phone, but I recommend anyone to use a third party authenticator app. Most services offer to scan a QR code to set up MFA, which can easily be backed up. Don't use Google/Microsoft authenticator apps directly. Personally I use Stratum, but any that allows export/import will do.
It's shame that the AI arms race causes such collateral damage. Free resources were always exploited, but the stakes ($T) and capabilities around AI allow unprecedented abuse. I wish we could go back... :/
I really don't see any solution to this; the scrapers probably wouldn't even mind destroying sources like IA too much, which would leave them as the only "authorative" source of knowledge in the end. Best way is likely regulation incl. hefty (!) fines, but politics are too slow and too fragmented to be effective. So... Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.
I'm a little more skeptical that this is "AI is big so it is worse" issue. Yes, AI is big in scale, but this has been the case for almost every popular free service. They either start:
- charging (news / journalist services)
- gate-keeping (X forcing log-ins)
- enshittifying (lots of ads and degraded service)
The fact that the way back machine is incredibly useful but most people didn't know about it or use it very much doesn't change the fact that it has basically become very popular... only with LLM agents rather than humans. Ads alone aren't enough to support human traffic for many sites with human traffic.
It's not using the File System Access API, on Firefox it uses <input type="file"> for file-picking, and the save just downloads it. It's not synchronizing anything with your filesystem.
Firefox unfortunately does not support the File System Access API. You can try by calling the most fundamental function, the one that asks the user to select a file:
window.showOpenFilePicker()
What Firefox supports is a "File System API" which creates something similar to the other old ways of storing data in a browser, like cookies and indexeddb. You cannot use it to edit normal files on your disk.
This is my main gripe with Firefox. They force their users to either store everything in the cloud or go through the arcane "download" workflow where you have to manually save files.
> Firefox unfortunately does not support the File System Access API.
I would not call it unfortunate. Browsers should not have access to the file system, USB ports, etc. Perhaps in "PWA"s, if the user has a way of giving and withdrawing consent.
Why is that true? Some applications require file system access. People would grant the application the permission to access files like any other resource like camera, mic, location.
Because vulnerabilities, coarse access granularity and lazy or ill-informed users. E.g., you now grant cam access per domain. Changing functionality on that domain doesn't revoke permission, so a simple bait and switch is already possible. Now imagine granting access to your file system to some Microsoft domain and finding out that there was a change of heart and some new script has uploaded your files to OneDrive and deleted them from your disk.
Taking that logic of protecting users from themselves to the extreme, a website should not be able to display text either. Because it can use text to ask the user to open their explorer and delete the files manually.
I think the flow of Chrome where the user has to select a file from disk and then acknowledge a prompt that the site will have access to that file until they close the window is fine. But if Mozilla wanted to protect users from themselves even more, they could make it as strong as they like. For example, by requiring to turn the functionality on in about:config.
Not giving the user the choice at all, if they want a cloud only browser or a browser that lets them work with local files is the wrong way.
Iirc the File System Access API should always originate File objects from an input picker so that the user selects the file to be opened and not give more access to apps than users allows?
True. I got this as my first LLM subscription (was a long time skeptic, less so now but still a bit), but now I have cursor too so maybe I can even downgrade. Thanks for the reminder. :)
Pixel cameras seem to do tremendous amounts of software-based post-processing but specifically in the official Google app. My partner has tested some camera apps and nothing comes close to Google’s. So I imagine that’s one of the reasons for the disparity.
Imo their language is not precise enough for their intelligence to be the reason when it's difficult to understand. Maybe I'm prompting wrong, but when I don't understand, it's almost always because they just mash together words from context that don't form sentences with a clear meaning.
reply