I'm quite happy thar they mention mental illness, as Meta and TikTok wouldn't ever take responsibility of how much part they took in setting unrealistic expectations for people to life.
I'm hopeful that ChatGPT takes even more care together with other companies.
They had to after a tweet floated around of a mentally ill person who had expressed psychotic thoughts to the AI. They said they were going off their meds and GPT 4o agreed and encouraged them to do so. Oops.
Perhaps everyone there is LARPing - but if you start typing stereotypical psychosis talk into ChatGPT, it won't be long before it starts agreeing with your divinity.
pre 2023, it took real human effort to make shit up, and there was much less incentive for the amount of effort, and you could more easily guess what was made up by judging whether a human would go through the effort of making it up. these days it's literally anything, all the time, zero effort. you're right there's always been fake shit but it's more than half the posts on /r/all these days are misleading, wrong, or just fake
Probably you are right. Early adopters prefer not to be bullshitted generally, just like how Google in the early days optimized relevancy in search results as opposed to popularity.
As more people adopted Google, it became more popularity oriented.
Personally I pay more not to be bs-d, but I know many people who prefer to be lied to, and I expect this part of the personalization in the future.
It kind of does matter if it's real, because in my experience this is something OpenAI has thought about a lot, and added significant protections to address exactly this class of issue.
Throwing out strawman hypotheticals is just going to confuse the public debate over what protections need to be prioritized.
Speaking anecdotally, but: people with mental illness using ChatGPT to validate their beliefs is absolutely a thing which happens. Even without a grossly sycophantic model, it can do substantial harm by amplifying upon delusional or fantastical material presented to it by the user.
I personally know someone who is going through psychosis right now and chatgpt is validating their delusions and suggesting they do illegal things, even after the rollback. See my comment history
,,for companies rooted in open source, it has posed a fundamental challenge: how do you keep innovating and investing in OSS projects when cloud providers reap the profits and control the infrastructure without proportional contributions back to the projects that they exploit?''
I don't see any exploitation happening. As DHH said, the main reason engineers open source their work is to give a gift to the world.
Open source is a gift to everyone (including Jeffrey Bezos); free software is a sharing economy. The difference is whether the sharing is reciprocal. With open source it's a one way gift from you to Jeffrey. He could have paid you for that. At the very least you can make him pay with reciprocal sharing.
I think you are not describing the difference between open source and free software but the difference between copyleft and permissive license.
Open source and free software licenses are basically the same (there are a few exceptions). For me, the difference is the focus. Free software cares about user freedom first.
User freedom means not giving someone else the freedom to take away user freedom though, which is what doormat licenses (can we call them cuck licenses or is that too far for HN?) do.
> User freedom means not giving someone else the freedom to take away user freedom though
This sentence does a shortcut that's worth expanding on, because it can give the impression that permissive licenses don't respect user rights, and because it doesn't cleanly apply to every situations.
User freedom is full with a permissive license. If I get software under MIT, my freedom is fully respected.
But it is true that forcing downstream developers to respect the freedom of their users through copyleft licenses is one of the strategies to improve user freedom overall (Personally, that's why I prefer the (A)GPL - I'm not keen on helping).
There still are some situations where you might be better off using a more permissive license, when your code is small enough or would strongly benefit from the network effect, for instance if it's a codec, or if there already are alternatives that proprietary software can use [1,2].
That is true. I'm talking general purpose. If you're putting something you made on the internet, and there's a good chance it's useful to someone, I recommend AGPL unless you have a specific argument against it. Also notice that it's easier to grant more permission than to take it away.
The main inhibitor of browsers advancing was not lack of funding, but lack of will.
It would be relatively straightforward to make web browsers competitive with Java/Swift mobile apps, but 2 specific companies would lose a lot of money on it.
Google has actively developed an entire UI framework for mobile applications that compiles directly into HTML+WASM. They want the browser to be competent, because a competent browser can attract money iOS users would otherwise spend on App Store fees.
I don't see how it would be "relatively straightforward" to make web browsers competitive if Chrome barely manages to keep up. There's a _lot_ of money going into making Chrome an alternative to the Android/iOS/macOS/Windows SDK, to the point where modern GUI applications have thrown out native controls and just render everything to a browser window instead.
Maybe you are right, but sone things I really dislike are:
- Getting rid of native SQLite in Chrome (Firefox was forced to follow), with the main reason is that ,,there are no 2 different implementations, all browsers use the same''.
- While there is file system implementation, there's no mmap, so there is no fast app start (just have SQLite with mmap, nothing fancy).
- No file system persistency guarantee, the OS can just wipe out the data
- All the persistent page APIs are just super hard to use compared to simple HTML/javascript/css as they are in a different process and need communication...it's overcomplicated instead of embracing a simple page as an app as an option as well.
You are right that WASM is a great improvement, and file system API is slowly coming back (still I'm not sure about mmap API which is crucial for fast app startup), but I'm talking about what was possible 10 years ago then reversed.
> Getting rid of native SQLite in Chrome (Firefox was forced to follow), with the main reason is that ,,there are no 2 different implementations, all browsers use the same''.
You have that backwards, it was Mozilla arguing against WebSQL (and never implementing it in Firefox in the first place) and Google was arguing for it.
I agree with your point about file system persistence, that is probably the biggest limitation in web apps compared to native apps today. However again it was Google arguing in favor of the File System Access API (letting web apps read/write normal files) and Mozilla/Apple arguing against it and only supporting a neutered version (fake hidden files that the browser can delete whenever it wants).
It's not _just_ the infrastructure that is awesome for homebrew. The help I got from the team, answering in real-time when I didn't know how to get through the CI bugs is amazing. It's the boring maintainence work that makes it so special for me.
I also feel that there could be a lot of automation in the backend part, catching bugs early (maybe even on local machine before CI run) for example.
To those who downvote, care to explain? Homebrew community is notorious in how they treat users on their GitHub Issues and I wonder why anyone is downvoting without showing how that situation have changed.
I guess people don't understand what it really means: government workers passing around naked selfies of their daughter that they are sending anyways to their boyfriends as part of the dating process.
reply