Crash0v3rid3

Mind sharing some examples of bad results you've seen vs other LLMs?

The "Google Alert" comment feels unnecessarily dismissive of a legitimate user concern.

The core issue for many, myself included, is not about asking a search engine to make "geopolitical judgments" in its search rankings. Rather, it's a question of corporate ethics in selecting business partners. The decision of which companies to partner with and fund is inherently separate from the algorithm that ranks search results.

> I sub on patreon to creators watch a lot, or directly on YouTube for ones who have that enabled.

Content creators deserve to be paid, even if you don't watch them often.

You can forward through sponsored segments.

Or, maybe vote with your viewership and don't watch content creators that have sponsored segments.

The post I am commenting on is NOT accounting for a stock split.

> Google's been 98% spam for well over a year now.

I find this hard to believe. How do you even measure for this?

I'd love to see a few more examples of searches you are making that show spam, because the example you gave provided me with the appropriate results. I almost suspect you are either being disingenuous or just have some malware on your computer.

What a terrible comparison. Both companies went through a stock split while they were CEOs.

I can't believe people on HN are still confused by this concept.

> As Reuters reported on Monday, the reasoning boils down to this: according to the judge, Sonos wrongly linked a pair of patent applications in 2019 to a much earlier provisional application from 2006 in an attempt to claim “a priority date before Google’s disclosures and product releases” that would thus put Google under “a cloud of infringement.” Sonos is also said to have discreetly made amendments to the documents, which greatly frustrated the judge.

If this is true, Sonos needs to be punished for such behavior. They clearly abused the patent system for their benefit, I'm surprised this wasn't brought up during the initial trial. Maybe it was, but I don't recall anyone discussing it.

What?

Why should I trust her reporting? She gave us zero evidence.

Megan made so many assumptions in that article based on a slide and single quote that we can't even see.

How about they actually provide some evidence before making such claims?

The author is making so many assumptions based on a single quote from a slide.

There is zero evidence for what they are accusing Google of doing.

Initially, I loved chatting w/ LLMs and exploring ways to 'jailbreak' them to do things not intended.

But, I feel like the novelty has worn off.

> What Google AI product can you actually use for your day to day programming?

Well there is bard that is available in many locations.

...and if you want APIs there is a plethora of them on GCP.