Apart from games, where this can also be used for more capabable and behaviourally more “interesting” NPCs (including computer opponents or teammates), the used techniques can be transferred to robotics. Quite a cool architecture.

“Kill switch” is a bit dramatic. It’s an on or off toggle. Would be funny though to call every toggle a kill switch. “Yeah, using the kill switch on GPU acceleration may help with rendering on some systems.”

“Use the kill switch for preventing Firefox of starting a new session without restoring the old tabs.”

“Kill all of your browser data upon exiting Firefox by enabling the kill switch.”

“Make Firefox your default browser by enabling the ‘set as default browser kill switch’.”

Extended to other UI interaction classes: “You don’t like English? Kill it by using the battle royale language selector to choose only the one language you like.”

Recently it feels like the news on this are flipping each week.
EU wants chat control.
EU does not want chat control.
EU want chat control (again).
EU backs awax from chat control (for now).

I have lost track.

The logic behind the voice controls sounds pretty questionable, but it’s supposedly backed by data showing that users spend billions of minutes talking in Microsoft Team meetings, according to Mehdi — so they’re already used to talking on the computer, right?

Do they really reason like this? Oh my. That’s stupid. And here I was thinking Microsoft employs clever people.

This is in beta, not available for all users and you can also disable it easily: https://support.ecosia.org/article/994-ai-overviews

As far as I know they are using Bing. They’ve started building their own search index last year in a partnership with Qwant.

German politicans also propose this. But no one will go on strike, because we would rather be a bit grumpy and complain why nobody is doing anything against this.

Why the fuck do we have so many football pitches? /j

Next up: Slovakia changes the constitution to enforce a flat earth world view, because scientific facts are ignored and they’d prefer to stay idiots.

The contents of the law, according to the article:

The bill introduces prison sentences of between one and five years for the illegal spreading of AI-generated or manipulated content if it causes harm.

There will also be harsher penalties for using the technology to commit crimes, including fraud and identity theft, and stricter transparency and human oversight rules governing how the technology is used in workplaces as well as in a range of sectors such as healthcare, education, justice and sport.

children under the age of 14 will need parental consent to access AI.

When it comes to copyright, the law stipulates that works created with AI assistance are protected if they originate from genuine intellectual effort, while AI-driven text and data mining will only be permitted for non-copyrighted content or scientific research by authorised institutions.

The law authorises up to €1bn (£870m) from a state-backed venture capital fund to support companies active in AI, cybersecurity and telecommunications, although critics argue the sum is small compared with investments being made by the US and China.

I don’t know the italian legal system very well, but I would have expected that laws regarding fraud, identity theft etc would already be sufficient so no special treatment of AI in this context should be necessary.

The copyright related data mining part is interesting though. Wouldn’t that hinder the development of commercial AI applications or is there a licensing system in place?

Furthermore I wonder how “genuine intellectual effort” is defined. Even before LLMs, image generators and alike, a lot of stuff has received copyrights that one might not consider “genuine intellectual effort”. Where is the line drawn?

My nieces. I don’t understand it. Maybe it’s something like with Pokémon or Yu-Gi-Oh cards back then. It’s popular for some reason, children get on board with it and want to be a part of it and then we get this trend.

My keys feel suddenly very drawn to these cars.

Yeah sure, if someone does not fit in with the team and it’s a rather social job, fair enough.

But using something arbitrary like favouring some sports team, even though this served as an example, this doesn’t seem to be either a significant nor sufficient decision basis.

Imagine this, very good grades, strong portfolio and work experience, just to be at the mercy of some random person who rejects you for highly arbitrary reasons like favouring another sports team.
Then you get a default rejection mail, saying they have very carefully considered your application and wish you good luck in your future endeavours.

Fuck this system.

Have you tried Ecosia?

Whithout a clear definition of intelligence, such a discussion is somewhat pointless. The closest thing I would use to describe artificial “intelligence” is: Mimicking human/natural thought and decision processes, without the necessity of being identical.

Secondly, regarding your first paragraph:
Humans excel at providing wrong information. Sometimes they are right. In that regard there are similarities between an LLM and a human.

By the way: LLMs are part of the field of AI. But AI consists of a plethora of methods and algorithms, where LLMs are just a tiny fraction that is currently very popular.

Crowdstrike already showed very impressively the danger of monopolies.

What is a Representative Sample and Why is it Important?

First hit on Ecosia.

Now tell me again about how peaceful religions are.