fonix232

I think you fundamentally misunderstood the potential issue.

Sure, on a reply based approach you can audit a DNS service.

But that doesn't tell you about other things like "is my DNS provider also providing intelligence agencies with my entire DNS query history?". The issue isn't "oh no the MI6 can redirect my PornHub link to anothe site", but "oh no the MI6 knows every single webpage I visited". Which is a valid worry given the current British political climate.

I can totally see the appeal of using LLMs to _help_ the DM. Not to replace it.

I DM a few games of The Expanse, and using LLMs to plan ahead was a godsend. No, I didn't utilise it to write the story for me - instead I used it to test my planned story and see which way my players might strafe off the road, so I can plan for those. Basically simulated a game using an LLM that acted in place of multiple characters, allowed those to run free (within certain limits, obviously you can't have the LLM players do a dozen actions without the DM having a say), and essentially mapped the potential "off branches", story pathways I didn't plan for initially. This has allowed me to be prepared for the usual dumbass things players might do, such as heading for a strip club in the middle of a total disaster where they (figuratively) have dozens of arrows pointing to the goal of the chapter.

Another interesting aspect of using AI for TTRPGs is to create atmospherics. For Expanse based games, I've bought a number of tile packs and such, to appreciate the artists who put work into it, but I simply don't have the funds to commission a few dozen acrylic matte style scenery images (which I usually put up on my projector, combined with some Hue lights to create the visual atmosphere). With AI, I can even generate them on the fly, should my little gremlins stray off the path. Same for music - AI can incredibly easily generate an atmospheric soundtrack that fits the current scenery, with just a few words, while I can still pay attention to the players.

But fully replacing the DM? That's silly.

Yeah, I was thinking the same. Fixr seemed like a solution looking for a problem, without having an even borderline clear idea on what it is supposed to be. No wonder it failed.

I've been saying for ages that our approach to personal computing is wrong.

Everything is focused on apps nowadays. You need an app for accessing the camera, you need an app to access Snapchat, et cetera.

On the other hand, what if our personal computing - let it be on your phone, on your laptop, or on your NAS - was about DATA POINTS? Everything on your device, including hardware like the camera, GPS, etc., becomes a data point that "apps" attach to. Slap some ML-based contextual recommendations to it, and you've increased productivity a lot.

For an average person this means opening the camera loads details like Snapchat, but for a professional photographer, it shows the "Pro" things by default. Open an MP3/WAV/[insert other audio format] file, for an average person, this offers playback options, for a sound engineer, it offers analysis tools, detailed editing/post-processing utilities, filters, you name it.

Then you can expand it by customising the launch interfaces. On a smartphone, you'd most likely want easy access to relevant information based on e.g. location (say, at home you'd get smarthome controls on your home screen, at the office you'd get your work email and related services, on the go you'd be getting relevant public transport/traffic information, at an airport, it would automatically pull up your boarding pass, at a Tesco, your ClubCard bar/QR code, and so on).

Of course this would require a major paradigm shift in computing, which would have major pushback from people - most people don't like big changes, especially in things they use everyday. Hell, I can't even get my parents to change smartphone brands, because they're used to how things are on their old crappy Chinese phones, and apparently, Samsung's or Apple's "menus are confusing and things aren't in the places they used to be".

The recent Apple fiasco about introducing ads into iOS shows how true your statement is. It doesn't matter (apparently) that you paid £1500 for a brand new spanking phone, Apple will still want to milk you for money, even though they made about 50% pure profit on that single sale.

A very apt comparison would be blackmail - you'd think that paying the blackmailers their demand would sort things out, simple transaction, I pay you, you get rid of the compromising material (or w/e they're blackmailing you with). Except no, you paying them just stokes the fire, because they see they can make more money off of you, so they'll come around again, demanding payment. You lost out on paying the first demand, and literally nothing changed.

Same goes for paid services. You'd think that switching from a free service structure (where your data is being sold to support the upkeep of the service), to something paid, would mean that they don't sell your data anymore, right? Well, why on Earth would they NOT sell your data when they can make money off of it?

Most companies, especially VC-funded ones, won't care about long term. You can always rope in users with flashy new stuff, discounts, promotions, and users are not likely to leave, even if you push them to the edge of acceptability of abuse (here, I'm considering sale of your private data, especially if you're a paying customer, abuse), simply because it's more comfortable to just accept it rather than try to find another service that fits your needs, move all your stuff over, etc. - plus, there's no guarantee that this new service won't change business practices in the future and start selling your data (or abuse your customership in a different way).

This is why the whole pro-capitalist argument "well just pay for it and they won't sell your data" is bollocks. In a capitalist market, there's absolutely no incentive for a company to stop making as much profit off your back as they can. There's no incentive to "provide a fair service for a fair price", but there's LOTS of incentive to "provide bare minimum services at the highest price a majority of the customers are willing to pay, one way or the other". The only way to fix this is via regulations, but that stifles "innovation" (and by "innovation" I mean the padding of the pockets of the investors).

> "But I'll spend money to train my employees and they'll just take those skills to go work for a competitor or start their own business!" Yes, that's a feature of the system, not a bug.

Pay your employees well, listen to their problems and fix them, and they won't leave the company for a competitor.

People leave for a handful of main reasons to competitors:

1. Money - this is the most obvious. Most employers simply don't want to give pay rises, to the point where they would rather hire a new person at 50-100% higher than your current salary, to do the same job, than to give you a 25-30% raise.

2. Bad management - second most common reason I see people leave, even for lesser paying jobs, just to be rid of bad managers. And for some reason most companies would rather hire _yet another_ manager to "fix things" rather than listen to the actual workers' problems. So the worker leaves when all they see is manager upon manager upon manager getting paid 2-3-5x as much as they are, who either don't do jackshit, or are overbearing micro-managers. Oh and of course these managers often claim any success of their managed people, while pushing any blame on them simultaneously.

3. No way to progress, either professionally, or within the company hierarchy. A lot of professionals end up doing the exact same job for years upon years, without going anywhere. They don't get promoted to a new position (but get new responsibilities continuously, without any financial renumeration of course), they can't go to another project, they're stuck in one place. And nobody likes feeling stuck.

Overall, a company can easily ensure that people they invest in, stay with the company to use those skills - just freaking listen to them. Not the managers, not some external "corporate coach", the people you invested in. Make sure they're happy, and they'll stay with you.

Oh, also, let's debunk that whole "I invested money in you therefore you can't work for my competitors" bullshit - all that investment, that's actually net zero for the company, since they can do tax writeoffs on those, as an expense. So at the end, that argument is pure BS, and restricting (ex) employees from working for the competition is pure pettiness.

Wikipedia needs some further systems implemented to ensure that the information they host is valid and correct.

For starters it would be nice if established articles had a level of protection by default - e.g. don't immediately publish changes, but await for consensus and/or a known reputable contributor accepting those changes. This would both help avoiding vandalism, and maintaining the quality level of the wiki pages altogether.

Then another thing I'd like to see is recently changed sections being highlighted - e.g. an added sentence/word/reference, a deleted section, etc., would all be useful to see. Combine this highlighting with the previous idea of withheld contributions (i.e. show the new contribution, but mark it with a warning that it's not yet confirmed legitimacy, and even offer the user to vote if it's a legit edit or not).

Basically, Wikipedia needs to transition from a 'raw information first' approach to something that also addresses edit history in an immediately visible way.

"To prove we have competitors, we will pull them into a legal battle they otherwise are not a part of, so we can make sure their business plans aren't something that would make them actual competitors in the future"

That's what Meta's subpoena sounds like.

First of all, the 5th amendment only applies to individuals, not entities like corporations. Second, it's main purpose is to not incriminate yourself - sharing business plans is hardly incriminating in itself (unless the business plan is specifically to commit a crime, but that would be dumb... Oh wait).

To me this feels like that Meta is trying to simultaneously measure up the market by making their competitors give out business plans that, frankly, are none of Meta's business, while also tying up smaller companies they feel threatened by in legal battles, as to drain their resources and run them into the ground (or, just a more appealing position where Meta can buy them up). And the latter isn't really new - I mean, Amazon pretty much "fired" mid-level executives and "placed" them at various competitors with the sole task of driving down the valuation of the competitor for easier purchase.

Either way, this kind of abuse of the legal system is disgusting, and even if the subpoena has legitimate reasons, it places an unfair amount of responsibility on an otherwise uninvolved party. The federal government could compel your company to produce an employee who can jump over a 5m wall, that doesn't mean it's suddenly possible.