Skip to content

Companies That Tried to Save Money With AI Are Now Spending a Fortune Hiring People to Fix Its Mistakes

Technology
126 91 8
  • Right to Repair Gains Traction as John Deere Faces Trial

    Technology technology
    30
    1
    622 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    121 Aufrufe
    R
    Run the Jewels?
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 61 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    65 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.
  • 179 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    R
    They've probably just crunched the numbers and determined the cost of a recall in Canada was greater than the cost of law suits when your house does burn down
  • 8 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    reverendender@sh.itjust.worksR
    I read the article. This is what the “debate” is: Experts: This is objectively horrible, and does not replace human interaction, and is probably harmful. Meta: This is awesome and therapeutic. Now give us monies!
  • 99 Stimmen
    48 Beiträge
    160 Aufrufe
    Y
    enable the absolute worst of what humanity has to offer. can we call it a reality check? we think of humans as so great and important and unique for quite a while now while the world is spiraling downwards. maybe humans arent so great after all. like what is art? ppl vibe with slob music but birds cant vote. how does that make sense? if one can watch AI slob (and we all will with the constant improvements in ai) and like it, well maybe our taste of art is not any better than what a bird can do and like. i hope LLM will lead to a breakthrough in understanding what type of animal we really are.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    292 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.
  • 317 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    156 Aufrufe
    F
    By giving us the choice of whether someone else should profit by our data. Same as I don't want someone looking over my shoulder and copying off my test answers.