Language Transfer is a radically different approach and I like it a lot. Almost the opposite of vocabulary learining platforms - you learn very little vocabulary, but you learn the logic and intuition behind the language. Even standalone, it is great, but supplement with some vocabulary - and you’re on your way.

There is an official android app, that has a big play/pause button, so you can pause mid-lesson. Doesn’t offer much more than playing the lessons, though, so may not be better than your average podcast platform.

Jesus, this looks pretty bad. And the best parts are nowhere nearly good enough to justify the average, let alone the worst parts.

I agree on everything you’ve said. Rust hype is a bit annoying and can be off putting. AI bros seem to have amplified the effect and I strongly dislike it. GUI is probably the worst area of Rust, but given the universality of Rust, I think it’s expected. I found egui easy to use, though, but far from swift ui, still.

Having tried both Swift and Rust - you can hardly compare them. For me Rust is in a different league. Swift is a modernization and a step forward compared to ObjC, but Rust is a different paradigm altogether. Swift has IMO done a great job for Apple as a platform, but has not achieved universality and had not transcended the platform. Rust has achieved universality, but has not captured any platform in particular yet. Both have not and may never replace C/C++, though my biased opinion is rust may have a chance (at least with C++)

What?! Well, surely Nintendo is better then!

I really hope so. 200k is peanuts for google, but probably significant for Motorola.

Honestly, I expect it will become increasingly hard getting a company willing to do something like this. Lately, all of the companies have started heavily enshittifying and I don’t know many that still care about their customers. And it’s a domino effect - they know you ain’t going anywhere, all the others are just as shit. I remember a time where you had a 100 phones officially supported by Lineageos and were cheap. You could get a Xiaomi, Huawei for like a $100 and they would run lineageos almost out of the box. Or a Nexus 5 for a few extra bucks. As soon as they eliminated the competition, they’ve become closed entirely and are basically spying machines. I don’t trust Motorola will be trustworthy in the long term, if they capture any market. Just a few months ago, they were caught hijacking affiliate links on their phones (link). I don’t know when the consumer situation will change, but I’m not holding my breath for Motorola. Of course, if they make a good phone running GOS, I might try it if my pixel kicks the bucket.

Well, we had a good run. It was nice while it lasted…

You CAN use AI responsibly, it’s just not worth doing, most of the time. It would cost more than just not using it in the first place.

True, People can be obnoxious. But you should still try it at some point, there is something to the hype.

Specifically, they mentioned Poplars and Willows. Perhaps more, but I hit the paywall, couldn’t read the whole thing.

Didn’t know autist=psychopath /s

Yeah, you know that episode where Homer does pranks for Mr Burns and goes in and buys a no 1 spiderman from the comic book guy and eats it in front of him. That’s how most people feel about book destruction. Nothing legally wrong, but disgusting nonetheless.

It works for them not scraping their own slop back into training data. I assume that is actually the real purpose of the system. They don’t want to share the key with the public. But they probably will with other llm companies in exchange for theirs.

My tinfoil head tells me they don’t want to ingest their own slop for training. But this only helps them if others do the same. Data poisoning is a real problem for llm future.

This won’t work - you can always use a dumber, open model to rephrase and remove the watermark. All this does is marketing for anthropic, which I see most people are buying. Gives you a false impression you will easily be able to figure out if it’s done by AI, which it is not. Liars are still gonna lie, cheaters still gonna cheat.

Endgame is training data is audited and ethically or at least legally acquired for ALL companies making models.

I think it’s mostly because it’s a long post in which you’re making them read a large amount of AI slop :). The surprising part I don’t think is a particularly good argument against your post and I’m sorry I also mentioned it. It is unsurprising to me, but the problem is there are a lot of people which DO find it surprising. But where I think you got it wrong is focus on you generating your particular misinformation and sharing it. A much stronger argument would be if LLM would share it by itself, unprompted. Like that time chatgpt was obsessed with goblins. Imagine if instead it was obsessed with antisemitism or something similar.

I agree with most others that said that this is hardly a surprise. But there are still interesting aspects of your post worth discussing instead. First, more obvious one. What if I am delusional and go to talk to AI? Doesn’t have to be this absurd, but there are already examples of this, like that guy that killed his mother because he believed she was a spy. Perhaps he was already delusional, but an LLM fed his delusion. Because LLMs aren’t reasonable, they can’t be made reasonable, and so any guardrails cannot be made to guard against all situation that reasoning is needed for. At the very least people need to be educated on what LLMs can and can’t do and how they do it. I would even argue against guardrails, as they provide people with false sense of security.

Second, but less obvious point, related to the discussion - is the influence of training data and how training data is framed on what the LLM will say. Someone posted the response of a different LLM refusing to entertain the delusion. This is all done by manipulating the training data and framing it in a way a company making it wants. If the company wants its chatbot to be seductive, for example, that can be achieved with subtle preprocessing of training data. The point I want to get is we need to trust the companies with what narrative they want to push be good for society which is obviously a terrible idea. Just look at musks AI and what it did. This influences people whether we notice or not.

To sum up - we need heavy regulations on LLMs to make socially responsible use of them and not just how they can/can’t be used, but also how they are trained, with what data and with what rhetorical goal (for the lack of better word).