strofcon

Except that the word, "recall", doesn't have two different meanings. It literally means the same thing here as it does for a recall wherein a Jeep has to have its shifter replaced / tweaked / whatever.

Just so happens that the latter can't be fixed via software, because it's not a software-based safety failure.

The former is fixable via software update, because it is a software-based safety failure.

Both, however, are safety failures. Both need to be fixed. Both situations incurred regulatory requirements to notify customers and provide a timely fix at no cost to affected customers, whether within or without the vehicle's warranty.

In short: both are recalls, and recall means the same thing in both cases: notify, fix, or face regulatory consequences.

I too enjoy putting "quotes" around a word to make it seem like it means the thing I want to pretend it means, instead of engaging honestly with the actual situation. :-)

It should when it's required by the NHTSA and comes along with mandatory reporting, notification, and deadline obligations, along with optional free on-site execution of the fix.

That's what makes it a recall. A software update is the mechanism, the recall is the "Tesla did something wrong and is being held accountable" part.

"your car has a defective part, *is unreliable*, and needs to be brought in to have that part replaced.".

Precisely! NHTSA determined that these vehicles are unreliable in this specific case, and thus need fixing. Glad we're on the same page. :-)

(I know, you want to pretend that it only ever means "physical repair" in everyone's mind, but that's a pretty big projection on your part.)

Oh, and I agree - it'll be useful for a number of reasons, but 'being generally intelligent' won't be one of them. :-)

I think you make a good point, benchmarks and metrics are indeed a better proxy for performance. Seems worth pointing out that, while "nowhere near half in [your] experience" are completely wrong, I don't take your word for it either. :-)

The trouble in my view is that the only way to know that the answers you're getting are accurate and not misleading is to study up on the answers elsewhere - which is a great habit to nurture, but is also precisely why these tools tend toward uselessness in their "general AI" bids. If I can't know how the answer was built, or how good that answer is, there's no point asking it - I'll just do my own reading and apply appropriate discernment as I go.

To be fair, hardly anyone does this today, nor did they before LLM-based chat bots... So it's a moot point, because society is largely doomed anyway. But a moot point can still be a valid one.

I also think the author makes a good point that we frequently confuse performance for competence. "It does a really good job at <X>!... or at least does a damn fine job of mimicking someone who acts like they do a really good job at <X>!"

By way of analogy, consider Elon Musk - by all appearances, he's a genius and is saving humanity - but by dint of his narcissism and largely smooth-brained approach to... well... everything... he's running all of us into an earlier planet-size grave than is necessary. His performance is fantastic, his competence is nonexistent.

Heh definitely an eyebrow-raising comment! On a second read of it though, I took it more as "because minimizing the code written is a pattern observed in the wild, AlphaCode mimics it as that's what it learned from."

I might be terribly wrong though. :-D

I was tempted to just post "because f** you, that's why" to be funny, but then it just felt like a quick path to the banhammer. :-)

Seriously though, I'm beginning to believe that this is the path of all general discussion platforms - jerks and morons infiltrate, and the rest of us fall for it.

Tl;dr - "Profitable company makes reasonable decision to stay profitable."

I don't really understand why the walled garden seems to still surprise so many people.

This is... A bizarre take. Impressive how wrong you can be in just two sentences. Kudos! :-)

Key difference - Uber didn't break the law while wiping out entire life savings volumes.

I understand that's a much broader-scoped situation than mentioned in the article (who cares about one country getting certain regs enforced), but the point stands - coinbase is a literally Ponzi scheme, and comparing it to other "eventually became legal" business models seems disingenuous.

"This is the value of cash. People can choose how much they want to trust 3rd parties and how much personal responsibility they want to take on. Some people may always choose a centralized mechanism for managing their assets, some will choose to manage their assets completely on their own, and others will decide on a case-by-case basis if they want a 3rd party involved."

Fixed that for ya.

"Just follow these 17 arcane steps and boom! Problem solved!" isn't a great flex.

That goes waayyy beyond "not wrapped up in a convenient user experience". Talking of finances is not so trivial a proposition as... Well, anything else that might have started our complicated on the internet.

Just a nit - it was about pseudonymity, not anonymity.

Still worthless tech, but in the interest of fairness. :-D

"As such, if I stand up a new email server and start sending email to Gmail addresses, I am at the whims of Google deciding what email from me gets delivered."

This is the critical point. Adoption matters, and always ends up with consolidated power. It's just how things are, and how they stay, short of the severe intervention of dramatically easy-to-use tools for "click to host your own stuff".