EatATaco

You're clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.

This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it's much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don't really know what's going on.

Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.

Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty.

Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true?

That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it...and you're posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving.

Because the CEOs are all more concerned with the commercial real estate market than running their company efficiently.

It's shocking how many people have honestly bought this. I mean, I'm sure there is some truth to it and maybe somewhere, someone forced people to come back because of some real estate interests... But the CEO of Amazon almost certainly gains to benefit much more from a rise in price of Amazon stock than any real estate they might own. And even if it was the case, I dont think the board would be very happy about it.

It might be the wrong move, and maybe it is being done to get people to quit, but it's being done because they think it means more money from Amazon.

I love posters who announce they are blocking you. Such a good person that they've gotta get that last dig in. Lol

Im not one to say you can never speak ill of the dead, but man to bash someone right after they die among a group of people that likely includes his friends requires a special type of social cluelessness, or straight up being a bad person.

No one in the military

Okay, but is the person still an officer? I mean, it is in the name. The way I see it, as a layman, it is kind of hard to ding the author for getting this wrong when they are technically correct and a laymen would consider them an officer, and the only real complaint is that colloquially military members don't refer to them as officers.

What am I missing or wrong about?

Their framing of how AI works is grossly inaccurate. I just corrected that.

I'm with you. I'm a Senior software engineer and copilot/chatgpt have all but completely replaced me googling stuff, and replaced 90% of the time I've spent writing the code for simple tasks I want to automate. I'm regularly shocked at how often copilot will accurately auto complete whole methods for me. I've even had it generate a whole child class near perfectly, although this is likely primarily due to being very consistent with my naming.

At the very least it's an extremely valuable tool that every programmer should get comfortable with. And the tech is just in it's baby form. I'm glad I'm learning how to use it now instead of pooh-poohing it.

I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.

I'm not even sure you're responding to my post.

Because what they are describing is just straight up theft, while what I describes is so much closer to how one trains and ai. I'm afraid that what comes out of this ai hysteria is that copyright gets more strict and humans copying style even becomes illegal.