They give too much uncritical attention to Google's PR statement, while barely affording a link to the venerable Graphene team at the very bottom of the page. This isn't a counterpoint to the exposed Google issues, it's a shrug

my experience was that Wikipedia was specifically called out as being especially unreliable and that's just nonsense. Let me clarify then. It's unreliable as a cited source in Academia. I'm drawing parallels and criticizing the way people use chatgpt. I.e. taking it at face value with zero caution and using it as if it's a primary source of information. Eesh. The value of a tertiary source is that it cites the secondary sources (which cite the primary). If you strip that out, how's it different from "some guy told me..."? I think your professors did a bad job of teaching you about how to read sources. Maybe because they didn't know themselves. Did you read beyond the sentence that you quoted? Here: I can get summarized information about new languages and frameworks really quickly, and then I can dive into the official documentation when I have a high level understanding of the topic at hand. Example: you're a junior developer trying to figure out what this JavaScript syntax is const {x} = response?.data. It's difficult to figure out what destructuring and optional chaining are without knowing what they're called. With Chatgpt, you can copy and paste that code and ask "tell me what every piece of syntax is in this line of Javascript." Then you can check the official docs to learn more.

I watched a bit of Michael Alm's video on this, but noped out when I saw all of the little boxes of consumables appearing. If regular printer ink is already exorbitant, I can only imagine what these proprietary cartridges will cost.

You know what's even cheaper to run than this "new technology"? Breathy promotion pieces that give no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims. Way to go, PR folks.

I have the regular F-droid and it does automatic updates now.

i can this for essay writing, prior to AI people would use prompts and templates of the same exact subject and work from there. and we hear the ODD situation where someone hired another person to do all the writing for them all the way to grad school( this is just as bad as chatgpt) you will get caught in grad school or during your job interview. might be different for specific questions in stem where the answer is more abstract,

I've been thinking about this for a bit. Gods aren't real, but they're really fictional. As an informational entity, they fulfil a similar social function to a chatbot: they are a nonphysical pseudoperson that can provide (para)socialization & advice. One difference is the hardware: gods are self-organising structure that arise from human social spheres, whereas LLMs are burned top-down into silicon. Another is that an LLM chatbot's advice is much more likely to be empirically useful... In a very real sense, LLMs have just automated divinity. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg on the social effects, and nobody's prepared for it. The models may of course aware of this, and be making the same calculations. Or, they will be.