Skip to content

AOSP isn't dead, but Google just landed a huge blow to custom ROM developers

Technology
99 66 363
  • 738 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    K
    That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying "I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer". It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn't just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place. AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I've never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn't, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway. In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn't "know" anything at all. It isn't sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it. Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information... ever. Make sure you understand that.
  • Indeed, Glassdoor to cut 1,300 jobs amid AI integration, memo shows

    Technology technology
    12
    113 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    P
    Both companies are owned by a large Japanese conglomerate. They got lucky with indeed, and have used little of its unbelievable market share to solidify it's position and improve the product. Indeed, properly managed, would print money and go parabolic as a stock. Instead it's just sat there because both sites suck and exist on inertia.
  • 812 Stimmen
    63 Beiträge
    245 Aufrufe
    misterfrog@lemmy.worldM
    I think the original commenter means that Google got off with a tap on the wrist
  • 212 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    84 Aufrufe
    A
    When it comes to public outreach, the question is more “why not?”
  • 61 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    71 Aufrufe
    anzo@programming.devA
    I’ll probably never trust anything they’ve touched until I’ve taken it apart and put it back together again. Me too. But the vast majority of users need guardrails, and have a different threat model. Even those that also care about privacy, if they just want a solution that comes by default, this adtech 'fake' or 'superficial' solution does provide something. And anything is more than nothing.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    320 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 105 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 87 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    T
    If you want to stay on the bleeding edge you've got to be a reversal of Europe, which means allowing innovation and competition. Hence why VT is nearly 70% US.