AI can be very useful, the problem here is humans trusting it to be accurate all the time.
In this case it should be used to narrow down results, but even then the police need to do their job. They need to do an actual investigation to gather evidence that they have the right person before even attempting to make am arrest.
Even removing AI from the picture entirely doesn't solve this problem. Just look at wrongful arrests that have been made simply because a wanted criminal has the exact same name as someone else.
In most cases, it’s a slam dunk win unless things went really wrong. (say a pandemic)
I think people are severely overestimating how much of an impact being an incumbent actually has with the final results. In smaller elections this definitely has a big impact, but in the entirety of the US history we've only had 27 presidents run for reelection, and 9 of them have lost.
That's a ~67% win rate for incumbent presidents, which isn't terrible, but isn't great either, and with a terrible sample size.
I'd rather have "star" or "approval" voting, but I'll take ranked choice voting over what we've currently got.
I think the consequences will be different for every case and based on what was done.
This ruling is a major step forward so that cases can actually be brought against corrupt politicians who are abusing their power in this way.
In this case, Sylvia was falsely accused, arrested, and then the charges were dropped a day later.
That's different when compared to Trump where he went through the court system and was found guilty on all counts.
Link to the court's opinion, if anyone is interested in reading through it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1025_1a72.pdf
So, roughly a radius of ~415 Miles (667km).
Hold up... there is a staircase going upstairs behind the couch!
Yeah, that shark was definitely trying to eat that turtle...
Anyway, the top comment from YouTube is useful:
They put two different clips together. The original is that the turtle was saved from being eaten by the tiger shark, and then after they released the turtle miles away from the shark, the turtle swam down, grabbed a jellyfish or something to eat, and brought it back up to try and “share” his snack with his rescuer. It was adorable. And they showed the entire thing from start to finish in that one, showing it was the same turtle, and the same man right after the rescue.
- @athenadaudelin1993 [11 days ago]
Thanks! It's a good read and I like the idea of a private cloud compute (PCC) system, but that doesn't mention anywhere that ChatGPT will be running in that PCC system (if you were trying to imply that).
And while OpenAI could implement something similar to PCC, I haven't seen them announce that anywhere either.
I'd say the proof is on Apple to show that it's being done on-device or that all processing is done on iCloud servers.
You're saying that OpenAI is just going to hand over their full ChatGPT model for Apple to set up on their own servers for free?
But from the article itself:
the partnership could burn extra money for OpenAI, because it pays Microsoft to host ChatGPT's capabilities on its Azure cloud
I get it if they created a small version of their LLM to run locally, but I would expect Apple to pay a price even for that.
I think you may be confusing this ChatGPT integration with Apple's own LLM that they're working on... Again, from the linked article:
Still, Apple's choice of ChatGPT as Apple's first external AI integration has led to widespread misunderstanding, especially since Apple buried the lede about its own in-house LLM technology that powers its new "Apple Intelligence" platform.
What? No. I would rather use my own local LLM where the data never leaves my device. And if I had to submit anything to ChatGPT I would want it anonymized as much as possible.
Is Apple doing the right thing? Hard to say, any answer here will just be an opinion. There are pros and cons to this decision and that's up to the end user to decide if the benefits of using ChatGPT are worth the cost of their data. I can see some useful use cases for this tech, and I don't blame Apple for wanting to strike while the iron is hot.
There's not much you can really do to strip out identifying data from prompts/requests made to ChatGPT. Any anonymization of that part of the data is on OpenAI to handle.
Apple can obfuscate which user is asking for what as well as specific location data, but if I'm using the LLM and I tell it to write up a report while including my full name in my prompt/request... that's all going directly into OpenAIs servers and logs which they can eventually use to help refine/retrain their model at some point.
I'm sure you understand this, but anonymized data doesn't mean it can't be deanonymized. Given the right kind of data, or enough context they can figure out who you are fairly quickly.
Ex: You could "Anonymize" gps traces, but it would still show the house you live at and where you work unless you strip out a lot of the info.
http://androidpolice.com/strava-heatmaps-location-identity-doxxing-problem/
Now with LLMs, sure, you could "anonymize" which user said or asked for what... but if something identifying is sent in the request itself, it won't be hard to deanonymize that data.
Thanks, I wandered in from "All". Content looks fun in here so I'll subscribe and stick around for a while.
I still need to watch the latest Netflix adaptation, of the show, it just hasn't been a high priority for me yet.
I feel out of the loop on this one.
Did Netflix have a publicity fail recently where they argued about how posting some flyers in a common area for employees was enough to satisfy some law?
(All I get from searching "Netflix" and "Blind" are news results for "Love is Blind").