i hate to break it to you but Discord the company is sending everything that goes through all servers and all private DMs through LLMs: this is done as a part of their trust and safety system. it’s right in the privacy policy that they use OpenAI

This is a good argument, but more for not using Discord than it not mattering if they put in a chatbot nobody wants.

The channels later returned to monetization when they started adding “fan trailer,” “parody” and “concept trailer” to their video titles. But those caveats disappeared In recent months, prompting concern in the fan-made trailer community.

YouTube’s position is that the channels’ decision to revert to their previous behavior violated its spam and misleading-metadata policies. This resulted in their termination.

It sounds like they only banned them for not having a disclaimer that it isn’t a real trailer, so unless that deters people from clicking on them, I assume others will do the same thing just making sure to disclose.

Gas not particulate

can learn how to be rejected without getting violent, or even mildly annoyed, anyone can. The reason people don’t is because they don’t want to

it’s because they’re pieces of shit and it reflects on their personality, and no one likes people who have a shitty personality

Rejection makes people feel bad as a rule. That’s not an excuse for treating others badly, and there’s ways to learn to have a healthier mindset, but I think it’s worth mentioning that it’s ok for people to at least feel the way they do and that having the “wrong” emotions in response to things doesn’t make you a bad person. It just means you might have to work harder to make sure to treat others with decency.

Bloat is a valid concern but imo a lesser one compared to the potential for centralized data harvesting.

I like the translate feature, just make all the AI stuff local and I’m fine with it, though if not I hope

AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off.

is a commitment they take seriously.

I feel like they are probably just guesstimating by using goatse as a source, so diameter?

oh, so it wasn’t a video player having an absurd exploit then

So wait, literally all it took was putting command line commands on their own line in a subtitles file? Am I interpreting this right

That’s what you’d think is being implied, but it’s a lawyer so who knows if this is the case

If the moral value of consent is about ensuring bodily and social autonomy for individuals, that’s kind of already entirely out the window in this situation to the point where it doesn’t seem like sex could meaningfully make it worse. What he’s doing is a violation of norms and is creepy, but it doesn’t seem like something that could cause actual harm. That’s in contrast with Carol’s interactions with the hive, which are all much more sympathetic, but did cause harm in various ways.

Well at least harming Amazon is a net good

the developers write that “our studio was mistakenly accused of using AI-generated art in our games, and every attempt to clarify our work only escalated the situation”. They say they’ve received a lot of insults and threats as a consequence.

This is a bad thing.

AI witch hunt strikes again

I’ve read that there are more effective ways to deanonymize tor traffic that goes through exit nodes, as opposed to accessing onion services which is more secure

They targeted gamers.

Gamers.

I don’t hate this article, but I’d rather have read a blog post grounded in the author’s personal experience engaging with a personalized AI assistant. She clearly has her own opinions about how they should work, but instead of being about that there’s this attempt to make it sound like there’s a lot of objective certainty to it that falls flat because of failing to draw a strong connection.

Like this part:

Research in cognitive and developmental psychology shows that stepping outside one’s comfort zone is essential for growth, resilience, and adaptation. Yet, infinite-memory LLM systems, much like personalization algorithms, are engineered explicitly for comfort. They wrap users in a cocoon of sameness by continuously repeating familiar conversational patterns, reinforcing existing user preferences and biases, and avoiding content or ideas that might challenge or discomfort the user.

While this engineered comfort may boost short-term satisfaction, its long-term effects are troubling. It replaces the discomfort necessary for cognitive growth with repetitive familiarity, effectively transforming your cognitive gym into a lazy river. Rather than stretching cognitive and emotional capacities, infinite-memory systems risk stagnating them, creating a psychological landscape devoid of intellectual curiosity and resilience.

So, how do we break free from this? If the risks of infinite memory are clear, the path forward must be just as intentional.

Some hard evidence that stepping out of your comfort zone is good, but not really any that preventing stepping out of their comfort zone is in practice the effect that “infinite memory” features of personal AI assistants has on people, just rhetorical speculation.

Which is a shame because how that affects people is pretty interesting to me. The idea of using a LLM with these features always freaked me out a bit and I quit using ChatGPT before they were implemented, but I want to know how it’s going for the people that didn’t, and who use it for stuff like the given example of picking a restaurant to eat at.

Yes?

There’s at least some difference between “have been” and “this is currently likely to happen”, since if it’s known then it would have been fixed. I’ve gotten viruses before from just visiting websites but it was decades ago and there’s no way the same method would work now.

Nice to see someone actually trying it themselves to do their own analysis despite having reservations