I agree. My Google TV with Projectivity Launcher shows zero launcher ads unlike my Apple TV. As a bonus, it lets me install SmartTube and use DeArrow and Sponsor Block.
I just wish I could get something similar as a native iOS app. Although I can use Safari extensions, the Safari YouTube experience on iOS is terrible.
I love Projectivity Launcher on my Google Streamer, but I can't figure out how to really replace the built-in launcher. Sometimes the device falls back to the default launcher until I press the "home" button on my remote.
This post unfortunately isn’t drawing the necessary distinctions between utility models, published applications, and issued patents. And it isn’t focusing on the claims. Patent law is complicated and it is easy to draw the wrong inferences.
But we know Hitler has a Time Machine that goes forward, he doesn’t need to return to use that knowledge as he already has a timeline here to use. Definitely risks involved here.
If you build an oracle that tells you who wins the war that far in the future, you build a simulator that allows anyone to win any war. Everything is dual use.
That will never work on any complex system that behaves chaotically, such as the weather or complex human endeavors. Tiny uncertainties in the initial conditions rapidly turn into large uncertainties in the outcomes.
Yeah, I wish more people understood that it is simply not possible to make precise long-term forecasts of chaotic systems. Whether it is weather, financial markets, etc.
It is not that we don't know yet because our models are inadequate, it's that it is unknowable.
The problem is we stupidly branded the field "chaos theory" and made it sound like bullshit so the ideas of non-linear dynamics have largely been lost on several generations at this point.
Not just chaos theory but "chaos theory" + psychedelic fractal artwork. Then the popular James Gleick book, "Chaos: making a new science" just sounds like complete bullshit and it sold a ton of copies.
I only started studying non-linear dynamics in about 2015 after first running across it in the late 90s but I literally thought it was all pseudoscience then.
Between "chaos theory", fractals and a best selling book it would be hard to frame a new scientific field as pseudoscience more than what played out.
A plausible alternative explanation for asking Johansson:
(1) They cast the current actor to test the technology and have a fallback. The actor sounds somewhat different from Johansson but the delivery of the lines is similar.
(2) They then ask Johansson because they want to be the company that brought “Her” to life. She declines.
(3) They try again shortly before the event because they really want it to happen.
(4) They proceed with the original voice, and the “her” tweet happens because they want to be the ones that made it real.
Asking shortly before the release is the weakest link here. It’s possible they already had a version trained or fine tuned on her voice that they could swap in at the last minute. That could explain some of the caginess. Not saying it’s what happened or is even likely, but it feels like a reasonable possibility.
My unsubstantiated theory: They have a voice trained on Johansson's body of work ready to go, but didn't release it because they didn't get her permission. This explains why they were still asking her right up to the ChatGPT-4o release. Then people (including Johansson) associate this Sky voice with Johansson and Her. OpenAI realizes it looks bad, despite not being intentional, so they pull Sky for PR reasons.
I’m not sure of the meta factors have driven it recently, but at least in some large US metro areas, it became enough of a problem that some coffee chains have recently switched from having in-store seating and restrooms to pick-up only without those amenities.
I wonder how much this has to do with LLMs making the essay portion of college applications (and even high school grades) somewhat useless at distinguishing among students.
Having a tightly controlled exam without the possibility of AI assistance seems to be the best option left for determining scholastic aptitude.
Standardized tests are interesting in that they measure both raw aptitude and socioeconomic resources. Either measurement is good from the perspective of long-term positive outcomes for matriculated college students but only the former is politically palatable these days
The conflation of the two measurements is a feature, not a bug. After all, the SAT is not an isolated FAFSA and it's not an isolated IQ test. It'd be easier for the SAT company to be just one of those but they choose not to be.
I recently learned just how much raw aptitude matters because my family began hosting a wickedly bright war refugee this past year. She flubbed the SATs on her first attempt, relative to her raw intelligence and her English competence, because she had received no ancestral wisdom about how to approach the SAT itself.
The article is light on the actual allegations, but at least they link to the complaint [1] (so few articles do). The claims are: Public Nuisance, Negligence, and Gross Negligence.
The special damage they claim to have suffered seems to primarily relate to expanding and diverting resources to deal with mental health issues of students.
The table of contents of the complaint is a good summary of their assertions, including:
Defendants’ apps have created a youth mental health crisis.
Defendants target children as a core market, hooking kids on their addictive social media platforms.
Children are uniquely susceptible to Defendants’ addictive apps.
Defendants design their apps to attract and addict youth.
Millions of kids use Defendants’ products compulsively.
Defendants' defective products encourage dangerous "challenges."
Defendants' defective social media apps facilitate and contribute to the sexual exploitation and sextortion of children, and the ongoing production and spread of child sex abuse material online.
- Defendants’ apps have created a youth mental health crisis.
Causality is really hard to establish, possibly impossible in this case. Nonetheless, there does appear to be a youth mental health crisis, and it arose around the time of the smart phone. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/honestly-its-probably-the-phon...
- Defendants target children as a core market, hooking kids on their addictive social media platforms.
It certainly appears that way to me; but it would help to get actual documentation of intent.
- Children are uniquely susceptible to Defendants’ addictive apps.
There is a lot of science that says that teens are vulnerable to addiction; the dual systems view, a pretty influential perspective, is that sensitivity to reward (particularly social rewards) increases dramatically in adolescence, but cognitive control lags; this leads to an increase in exploration vs exploitation, which is adaptive, but risky. I think they are on strong ground here.
- Defendants design their apps to attract and addict youth.
Like the last, documentation of intent would be the best thing for the case.
- Millions of kids use Defendants’ products compulsively.
This is probably true. Adults too. Defense is going to say that its up to parents and guardians to police the use of these apps. That argument didn't work with cigarettes and alcohol, so I'm guessing won't work here eitehr.
- Defendants' defective social media apps (a) facilitate and contribute to the sexual exploitation and sextortion of children, (b) and the ongoing production and spread of child sex abuse material online.
I've denoted one as (a) and one as (b). (b) is undoubtedly the case. (a) is more culture-war-y, but its hard to argue that a lot of the viral video content is not sexxed up*
* I'm no prude, but find it annoying that 90% of the reels that Facebook suggest to me are sexual in nature, and that the sexually arousing nature of the suggested videos grabs my eyeballs. I mean, it works. But, I don't want those kind of distractions when I'm scrolling to see what friends and family are up to. Oh look, my sister took her kids to the beach. Oh look, that couple is simulating sex on a picnic table! Oh look, Mom got her first ripe tomatoes!
Regarding evidence that social media targets children as a market and strategizes how to continue engagement (aka addiction) I actually don’t think this will be extremely hard to prove. Instagram already has internal documentation showing they’re aware that their application has a causal relationship to the harm of the mental health of teenaged girls, but obviously Instagram hasn’t done much of anything to improve things. At minimum I bet similar studies exist in other platforms in internal discussions, and gross negligence if not intent can be measured via subpoena and discovery. It would only take one higher up writing a slack message that effectively says, I want this feature done, no I don’t want this mitigating implementation that would make it less harmful.
I've recently quit Twitter and Facebook, and I must admit that these apps are mentally addictive in the same way that cigarettes are addictive. I often think about them when bored, wondering what I'm 'missing' with my friends or followers. It's taken a level of mental strength to avoid re-installing or re-activating in both cases. So in my view, the addiction is 30% of the argument. The 30% is that they cause harm, and remainder, which I agree will be more difficult to prove, is that it was done with intent.
Gaming too. And then we put it into our kid’s pockets, and started hiring psychologist to consult on game development…
They don’t stand a chance.
Part of the human experiment I guess. We’ll see where we end up. I suspect authoritarianism, rampant viruses, and a toxic environment while we entertain ourselves to death.
> This is probably true. Adults too. Defense is going to say that its up to parents and guardians to police the use of these apps. That argument didn't work with cigarettes and alcohol, so I'm guessing won't work here either.
But cigarettes and alcohol is legally age restricted. Or did that happen later?
seems like Baltimore leadership is just trying to find ways to blame other people for problems they created. They are also suing Kia on the same weak basis of "public nuisance".
I agree this case probably shouldn't succeed, but pretending that these companies have no part in a ongoing youth mental health crises, and that they arnt targeting youth purposefully, is also not the way to go about this.
> In other words, and I'm hardly the only one saying this: ChatGPT is not a replacement for people. It's an augmentation. It's a bicycle for the mind, to steal Steve Jobs's famous metaphor.
This is the analogy that jumped out to me as well. LLMs seem to be more of a vehicle than a destination. Like a bicycle, LLMs need to be operated with the direction and effort of an operator to ensure it stays on course and doesn’t veer into traffic.
Continuing the analogy, I suspect that LLMs will open up traditional white collar jobs to more people. More people can get to the destination on time with the aid of a bicycle than on foot.
I just wish I could get something similar as a native iOS app. Although I can use Safari extensions, the Safari YouTube experience on iOS is terrible.