gklitz

> Apple’s AI tools were built with responsible AI principles to avoid perpetuating stereotypes and systemic biases.

This is either a straight up lie or an extreme stretching of the truth.

This is from the Danish models but literally this is what it puts as autocomplete for “woman are …”

> woman we not worth as much as men

And it’s not a one off. It’s been going around social media that autocomplete for a long range of other initial phrases are just as stereotypically chauvinistic or racist. It’s pretty clear that no effort was taken at all to sanitize the models.

And no, it’s not using your chat history, though it used to do this. Which just makes things worse as there things are being spread because everyone who draws attention to it on things like Facebook are immediately accused of being a racists or chauvinist.

> The negatives of ~Tiktok~short form videos have nothing to do with …

It feels silly with this coloring of TikTok as the evil when meta, Google and a dozen other American companies are doing the same, just less successfully because they let advertisers and corporate interests buy priority in the algorithm which literally just boils down to “you likely like the same stuff as people who like the same stuff as you”.

For anyone who actually has the app this claim comes of like someone going “The night sky is yellow, trust me, don’t look up!”

That is to say it’s so obviously false if you want to see for yourself just download the app.

> creators may still flock to a credible TT-alternative for better monetization

Seems people are already mass migrating to Rednote. I’m not sure how that plays out though.

> This is the entire purpose of LLCs.

It’s not. A lot of weight should be put on the concept of “legitimate business”. Let’s say you decide to open up a car dealership and you use an LLC to buy cars then transfer them to another LLC and sell them. Then declare bankruptcy on the one containing the bills. You won’t be shielded, and you’ll likely go to jail for fraud.

The construction is to allow a business to go bankrupt with limited liability not to allow the expense account of a business to go bankrupt.

If OpenAI had run its company by hiding their hardware around a university campus they would have gotten in trouble too. It is not as much about the scraping as it’s the the part where MIT sees a masked person sneaking into backrooms hiding equipment that got AS in trouble. And of cause that he literally disrupted service to jstor because he did a poor job of scraping it. He could have gotten through all of this if he had appeared less like a cyber terrorist in his execution of his plan, but of cause he though he wouldn’t get caught doing it, so he never considered how it would look if he did.

The framework for clinical trials it to go from “there doesn’t appear to be any harm” to “we have reasonable proof that no harm is expected”.

If this is as promising as it sounds it’ll surely process through the stages as it should and eventually reach human trials.

> but no one has really brought it up in years

Yes, it hasn’t been brought up during the last four years because he wasn’t president. Now that he’ll be president again it’s suddenly relevant.

> For instance, a friend in Europe had to do a 250K GoFundMe campaign to pay for a life-saving treatment for his daughter because well, the only place in the world that performed the surgery she needed was... Guess where? The US.

Interesting, do you have a link? It’s the first time I’ve ever heard of such a case.

> One of the reasons that we don't have Universal Healthcare in the US is that things that are categorically unhealthy would be prohibited from being sold.

Counter argument: Pretty much every other nation has socialized healthcare and still allows sugary beverages and tobacco products.

People use the term iPad to refer to non Apple tablets as well. That’s not an argument against Apples trademark.

People may not like Oracle, but the arguments against them owning the trademark on the grounds that it’s used to refer to the thing that it actually is, are extemely weak. I can see the non-use argument being a viable path though.

> Whenever anyone says "JavaScript" they actually mean "ECMAScript", which is the language browsers and scripting engines actually implement.

It’s the exact opposite though. Whenever someone says ECMAScript they actually mean “I want to say JavaScript but for legal reasons I’m using another name for it” but that also happens so rarely that it’s not worth considering.

If I invent a new term for iPads and say “well actually when people say iPad they mean ECMApad which is technically the same just a different branding of it” that doesn’t give me grounds to have Apples trademark on iPad discarded.

Programmers may not like it, but JavaScript is a pretty well established and robust trademark and people use it correctly to refer to the same one thing. The problem really just is that people don’t like the owners of it, but that’s hardly a case to have it invalidated.

You mean ban advertisement?

> with no seeming explanation

Oddly though every such thing that “defies explanation” also defies being reproducible in controlled experiments.

That’s the thing a about non scientific stuff like this. If it actually worked it would literally just be science and we would be able to reproduce it.

If you buy a magic moon rock that lets you only roll 6’s on dice, you would equally be left feeling that the 1/6 of the time that it worked was proof enough to you that it was actually true, because you bought yourself a bias along side the useless rock.

Same is true a lot with things like yoga for anything outside the Pilates component, it only “works” if you dedicate enough time and money to it, at which point you’re just biased because you don’t want to feel you’ve wasted your time and money. Sure 1/20 might find that it “cured” their illness, but only if that’s the rate of improvement in a control group as well.

If you pay someone to deliver post, and they get their leg blown of because you order them to go through a minefield, you can’t just avoid responsibility by going “that’s what they signed up for” obviously the responsibility of ensuring that the job can be carried out not physically and r safe is with the employer and workers are well within reason to demand compensation if the employer hasn’t ensured the job can be safely carried out.