subignition

joined 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Having done it for a living for a few months, you cannot possibly imagine how bad it gets.

No, seriously. I already had very little faith in humanity going in, and thought I'd seen the worst the internet had to offer. Scraping the actual bottom of the barrel is difficult to even describe. I had to force a stunned sense of humor about it to detach myself a bit as a coping mechanism.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

If they were any more inbred, they'd be a sandwich.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if they really cared about intellectual property rights, this would be OPT-IN.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Was that supposed to speak to some part of my comment...?

It seems like a complete non sequitur to me.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I am WAY too unqualified to understand any of the technical stuff, so I'll be waiting to hear thoughts from experts on this one. It looks like if there are no major flaws in it this is a great thing for the platform overall.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I am a bit out of the loop in terms of RDBMS history, what do you mean by MySQL refugees?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

If functionality exists in the client app, there's nothing to be done to stop someone from bypassing checks.

Looking into it further this looks like it's an API between the backend of a service and Google though. That would be difficult to defeat, but you could probably spoof the identity of the requesting device with enough effort

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 month ago (13 children)

It's not like dedicated people aren't going to be able to just patch out the calls to this API from the apps themselves...

This feels like yet another attempt at DRM that is doing more harm than help.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Damn, you're living in the future. I'm still stuck using three shells.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Well today I learned, thanks for the correction.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They're pretty reasonable for consensus-based programming prompts as well like "Compare and contrast popular libraries for {use case} in {language}" or "I want to achieve {goal/feature} in {summary of project technologies}, what are some ways I could structure this?"

Of course you still shouldn't treat any of the output as factual without verifying it. But at least in the former case, I've found it more useful than traditional search engines to generate leads to look into, even if I discard some or all of the specific information it asserts

Edit: Which is largely due to traditional search engines getting worse and worse in recent years, sadly

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

~~The "P" is for predictive, not pre-trained. Generative Predictive Text~~

Edit: Nope I was wrong.

view more: next ›