Skip to content

Tesla In 'Self-Drive Mode' Hit By Train After Turning Onto Train Tracks

Technology
134 94 659
  • 154 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    216 Aufrufe
    O
    That is still isolated because they do at least a million times more business
  • 21 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 92 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    37 Aufrufe
    H
    This is interesting to me as I like to say the llms are basically another abstraction of search. Initially it was links with no real weight that had to be gone through and then various algorithms weighted the return, then the results started giving a small blurb so one did not have to follow every link, and now your basically getting a report which should have references to the sources. I would like to see this looking at how folks engage with an llm. Basically my guess is if one treats the llm as a helper and collaborates to create the product that they will remember more than if they treat it as a servant and just instructs them to do it and takes the output as is.
  • 386 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    37 Aufrufe
    C
    Melon Usk doomed their FSD efforts from the start with his dunning-kruger-brain take of "humans drive just using their eyes, so cars shouldn't need any sensors besides cameras." Considering how many excellent engineers there are (or were, at least) at his companies, it's kind of fascinating how "stupid at the top" is just as bad, if not worse, than "stupid all the way down."
  • 258 Stimmen
    46 Beiträge
    240 Aufrufe
    stzyxh@feddit.orgS
    yea i also were there at a few thousand I think and the content has changed a lot since then.
  • Companies are using Ribbon AI, an AI interviewer to screen candidates.

    Technology technology
    52
    56 Stimmen
    52 Beiträge
    204 Aufrufe
    P
    I feel like I could succeed in an LLM selection process. I could sell my skills to a robot, could get an LLM to help. It's a long way ahead of keyword based automatic selectors At least an LLM is predictable, human judges are so variable
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    415 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.
  • You Can't Look at Porn on Any Reddit Third-Party App Now

    Technology technology
    2
    1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    V
    3rd party apps were still working ?