Skip Navigation

Posts
116
Comments
34
Joined
1 yr. ago

Mastodon: @[email protected]

Opinions exclusively of my own and of voices in my head.

Autism, communism, arthitism, cannabism.

  • I’m happy here, thanks. I try not to go too extreme on echo chambers.

  • Individuals leaving would be unproductive but by the time they’re leaving due to reputational troubles we can still ask them why they didn’t do it earlier. This is something to keep in mind once whistleblowers and insiders start spilling beans. We’ve allowed nazis into science programs but these people have nothing of value to offer.

  • I meant that the only mechanism of verification of LLM output makes LLM pointless, hence if they’re using LLMs they won’t be really verifying it. If your use case has a risk appetite for being wrong 10% of time then go ahead. I’d rather get my news from a source that aims for 0% even if they make an occasional miss.

  • EU governments, not EU people. Was curious where they got this from but it was just a misleading clickbait title.

  • You have to remember and realise, Ars Technica is a tech site. In fact, the name is Latin for "the art of technology" (I think — something like that). If they don't embrace AI to some extent, how can they reasonably call themselves a tech site? They have to embrace it.

    Let’s say there’s a magazine on constructing buildings. Do they have to embrace using asbestos themselves to report on it?

  • They’re reasonable in terms of covering their butts. They do not ensure in any way, shape or form that they are actually followed. If they were followed (all source material read and understood by a human) then an LLM wouldn’t add anything of value because a human already summarised it. This is a lot of text about their dreams and aspirations, not an actual policy.

  • Reporters may use AI tools vetted and approved for our workflow to assist with research, including navigating large volumes of material, summarizing background documents, and searching datasets. Even then, AI output is never treated as an authoritative source. Everything must be verified.

    When we attribute a statement, a position, or a quote to a named source, that material comes from direct engagement with interviews, transcripts, published statements, or documents reviewed by the reporter. AI tools must not be used to generate, extract, or summarize material that is then attributed to a named source, whether as a direct quote, a paraphrase, or a characterization of someone’s views.

    How do you control „Everything must be verified” specifically? I’m pretty sure similar rules must have been in place when they published a hallucinated interview.

    tl;dr - don’t quote or link to Arse Technica because it could be made up entirely

  • This one is formatted in a fancy way hence archived version looks wonky but content is just a bit further down. The article seems to be accessible without paywall though, for now at least.

  • Meta employees know very well what Meta promises on data privacy mean. After all, they’ve been profiting from it for years.

  • This is an official ad. Let’s wait for non-sponsored coverage by people who have actually seen the product?

  • I’m more worried about people who create content you come to YouTube for. Should they work for free for your entertainment?

    Inb4 „they don’t get paid much anyway” etc

  • The lengths people will go not to pay for Premium.

  • I guess notifications being constantly broken in Beeper (app I use for Messenger and Signal) are a good thing now.