“Temu is designed to make this expansive access undetected, even by sophisticated users,” Griffin’s complaint said. “Once installed, Temu can recompile itself and change properties, including overriding the data privacy settings users believe they have in place.”
So just like the majority USAian app out there?
Which apps do that? Because I am certain it’s NOT the majority, and very skeptical about any other apps doing that.
deleted by creator
.bik intro video file with an “empty” one to skip intros
So to me, saying “we don’t know if it was sexting,
They may have not known the source and tweet wording. I certainly didn’t.
/edit: I see it’s in the article as well.
Adding to
The value of Bitcoin has only increased over time
???
And not only a bit. A fall from 67 to 16.
Will it move the mouse for me?
Seems fairly obvious and to be expected that they would do that, given their intelligence and environment and utility use.
Still, important and significant to observe and prove in the wild. Especially as not one-off random anecdotal observations.
I think you can learn it when you’re younger than 20 years old
Thank you
Deep Narrative: Experience a story rich with political intrigue and moral dilemmas.
we call it eine Politischintrigenhaftmoralischdilemmaischerfahrung
What are you referring to as obviously fake? The article about that bot account?
… any text form?
The only way to meaningfully advocate for it after your company already announced their conditions and offerings is to present value gain.
What do you suggest concretely? What should be offered under what conditions? What would that mean as cost? What would the benefit be? How substantial is it?
Reaching out privately to them is certainly going beyond what you are employed for. I don’t know about ill-advised - if you never disclose it or are at least mindful of that. But it’s a personal assessment. You seem to be willing to invest a lot into a single customer, who tries to do something not offered or considered by the company. Whether it’s personal interest, or first a broader better understanding of the use case, I can see how it could be worth or worthwhile. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up about changing the opinions of your company [from their information alone].
Your company offered API access. So there is an interface available. They won’t make it free unless they see and deem it worth it to do so.
What are those options?
Domain and IP block lists?
Does it apply if you don’t say that you are posting under the license? It may be implied, the intent is reasonably clear, but an argument of ambiguity can be made. You’re merely linking to a license.
Does it apply if the link label mismatches the license? CC by-nc-sa does more than deny commercial AI training. It requires attribution, requires general non-commercial use, and requires share-alike.
Personally, I prefer when it’s at least differently formatted to indicate it as a footer and not comment content. I’ve seen them smaller and IIRC italic on other commenters, which seems more appropriate and less distracting and noisy [for human consumption]. When the comment is no longer than the license footer… well…
So what you’re saying is that we need AI do interface in-store as well? /s
I don’t think it seems like too few samples for it to work.
What they train for is rather specific. To identify anger and hostility characteristics, and adjust pitch and inflection.
Dunno if you meant it like that when you said “training people’s voices”, but they’re not replicating voices or interpreting meaning.
learned to recognize and modify the vocal characteristics associated with anger and hostility. When a customer speaks to a call center operator, the model processes the incoming audio and adjusts the pitch and inflection of the customer’s voice to make it sound calmer and less threatening.
I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.
I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).
Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.
Did they denounce target children before?