Isn't there a workflow where you scan a QR code to confirm the pass key on your phone?
I've definitely done this, but not sure if the workflow was at the OS or browser level.
I'm honestly confused by all the negativity in the comments. Passkeys are great for convenience. Just leave your password login enabled as a backup. That defeats any security benefit, but oh well.
There are a lot of reasons why I might want to login on a computer I don't own to do something, rather than to use my phone. Having a keyboard is a major usability benefit for many types of work. Larger screen, printer. Software that is on the machine that can't run on my phone.
I agree with you; those are all reasons I only use my phone for on-the-go messaging or navigation. I'm against the idea that you should have to have a secure (against the owner) connected phone on your person at all times in order to sign in to a web service.
This is what I use to log into our remote desktop software at work. The passkey is on my phone and I scan a QR code presented by the remote desktop software (in this case it's the Windows App on my macbook and Microsoft Authenticator on my android).
I was under the impression that front-running was something that happened in the span of seconds (or milliseconds), not a timeframe compatible with LLM inference time.
Your media literacy training can start with skimming headings. When every heading sounds like Buzzfeed clickbait, emphasizing and contrasting numbers with a sort of faux-punchiness to them, or overusing "the" to make things sound more definitive than they actually are, or... on and on, it really couldn't be more obvious.
> Six emails, one button
> The hotline sends you to the office. The office sends you to the hotline.
> The bank could. Google couldn't.
> Three companies at one address
> A company wih 105 million in capital, five employees and zero website
> The address Google did not show its customers for two and a half years
> People who left, and people who came
> Germany: the court that ordered the data to be returned
> Ireland: where the other party to the agreement lives
> What disappears with the inbox
Or the "in brief" at the top, which is spamming numbers as though they add dramatic tension. Or, just like, every. fucking. sentence. You know, years of reading this shit can't be distilled into a comment. Have you not been reading articles for the last three years? LLMs have very distinct voices.
> The phone sent me to the address. The address sent me back to the phone. The loop closed in one day.
> This is not a mess. A mess looks different. This is a design (...)
> One account, four companies. Each does exactly what it was created to do, and each is fully within the law. (...) Nobody here breaks the law. And that is exactly why there is no one to go to. (Attempted conclusion)
> One empty chair remains in this puzzle. (???)
> The eloquent individual history comes from India. (eloquent???)
> What does this mean for the user? Simply that when the inbox was disabled on September 1 (...) (Talking in third person about himself?)
> Google can be sued in Poland. (No shit)
> Google itself publishes the rules for such an eventuality, which sounds almost like politeness. (WDYM it "sounds like politeness"??)
Jesus fuck, would you get off your high horse already? This is every investigative article heading since before Dario or Sam even finished high school.
Seeing LLMs everywhere is another kind of AI psychosis.
Can you show me one long-form investigative article from, let's say before 2020, that is nearly this dense with this BS? A single headline or a punchline here or there doesn't count; what makes it an LLM tell is that it's fucking constant, being abused and misused to add dramatic tension to things that aren't dramatic. The "humans do this too" defense is so tiring because you people never draw a distinction between a human doing something correctly as a rhetorical flourish and a bot spamming a learned trope over and over and over and over again in every single sentence without any regard for whether it makes sense to.
Hard to say what you're trying to get at here - are you saying people are shit writers and thus write in a shitty, LLM-sounding way, or that people are shitty writers and use LLMs to do the writing for them.
The latter is pretty inexcusable intellectually and disrespectful of people who will read the slop, and as the other guy said, it's incomprehensible (to everybody but you apparently) that shit writing would suddenly, in just the last few years and entirely by coincidence, mirror the shit writing shat out by LLMs.
You asked for examples multiple times, got a plethora of them, and then went silent. Profile is old but the entire 1st page of comments relate to LLM language use and in particular how to sound like a human being and not a large language model.
A bit of cheeky botting? AI agent training mayhaps?
These models are trained on human language, which belongs to us, we shouldn’t surrender it to them. Keep the em-dashes. IMO don’t overuse negative parallelisms though, they were always bad and lazy.
For the first time ever in my life, I consider the fact that English is not my first language and that I never had any formal education in it as an advantage.
Nobody is going to consider my weird and barbarian prose with the well polished product of a SOTA model.
English as a 2nd language speakers often have better grammar than natives in my experience! I wouldn't be surprised if the average native english speaker doesn't know the different between there and their.
I always wonder what makes people take the other side of this argument. They do it quite passionately. Why actively encourage viewing LLMs as human? Who is that benefitting?
Does the argument require benefit? Isn’t the argument based on caution?
I haven’t heard many people explicitly saying “these things behave like humans”, but more generally “we don’t even know how to define human consciousness, we don’t have a thorough grasp of how the brain works, we are still very much in the dark on a lot of these topics, so how can we say one way or the other?”
In other words, agnosticism: I don’t know.
In general, it’s baffling to me that anyone has an unshakable opinion on what exactly is happening. It seems like raw egotistical hubris.
1) Humans have a bias / tendency to attribute human qualities to things that appear or act human, but aren’t.
2) When that happens, people jump to conclusions by stretching the human analogy too far.
3) Since humans have a bias to do this, we should have a bias against anthropomorphising LLMs.
It’s easier to believe LLMs act like humans because there’s so much evidence to support that. You have to actively use your brain to convince yourself otherwise. Another reason why we should have a bias against using human behavior to describe LLM behavior.
But I agree. “I don’t know” is a good stance. But I think “I don’t know, probably not” is a better stance if only to combat our (or at least my) natural bias.
I appreciate when people write things like, "this is an advertisement for the author's product, X." Why stay silent? If the commenter's accusation smells fishy, I'll read the article myself. Otherwise, they helped me.
My point was that if someone is at fault, it's the individual OpenAI employees. Because they chose to engage in a professional field, they can't use "boss told me to do so" as a defense.
Err, no. If someone is at fault, it is definitely the company (OpenAI) not the employee in this case.
Just think, isn't the whole point of a company, of incorporating, is that the liability shifts from the employee to the firm?
It is 100% fair to hold the company responsible, and doubly so when the questionable thing the employee is doing is something that A) benefits the company, and B) is on company time (aand with company resources.) I know you weren't making a legal-minutia point but even the high level principles involved are and should be the opposite of what you suggest.
Companies may want to have their cake and eat it too (have employees do their dirty work but then push the blame on the employee) but that's not how it works and it's generally not a society you'd want to live in the more we head in that direction.
That's the difference between a profession and a job. If you work in a professional field, other people in the field will judge you by the standards of the profession.
Academic research is structured around people working under their own name and taking personal responsibility. Most people are employed, but employers are not directly involved in the research. Some people have more traditional jobs, but others will still judge them by the norms of the field. You can't use administrative loopholes to escape moral responsibility.
Employees can't have their cake and eat it too either. If you claim credit, you claim responsibility. If you claim that your employer is responsible, you claim that you had a supporting role and that you didn't make any intellectual contributions towards the result.
Apple are king of form over function. Have we already forgotten that hack Jony Ive and his fetish for removing usefulness in favor of a few mm of thinness? Or the stupid fucking Touch Bar keyboard?
I still have a touch bar MacBook and the keyboard is unusable now.
The touch bar was not a bad invention. Apple just neglected it and never gave it the software support it deserved. With some proper development it could have been great.
The touch bar was a terrible invention. Apple had no shortage of money to fix the software side, they just recognized that it wasn't a "Pro" feature.
Consider the most basic usage of the touch bar, displaying function keys. The tactile feedback of a physical function row enables most people to touch-type the function keys from home row. For IDEs, NLE/DAW workflows, UNIX terminal setups and cross-platform software, the touch bar had nothing to offer but downsides. And even in apps that supported it, there was no unified mnemonic standard that enabled you to use the touch bar strip without looking away from the monitor and losing sight of your content. Apps that copied the content into the touch bar were even more hilariously cornered into bad UX, displaying a postage stamp-sized status for whatever you're working on.
The common defense of the touch bar says it needed hardware reworks and greenfield HID architectures to succeed. But I think Apple realized it was a totally flawed concept, and iterated on it internally to the point that they realized it was a sunken cost fallacy.
I’m sure I’m not the only programmer that developed a habit of resting my finger on the F5 key at a certain point in my workflow, and then had to unlearn it just because of the stupid touch-bar (Still using my 2019 Intel MBP with stupid touch-bar).
Aware of what, though? We don't actually know OpenAI's profit margins on inference. Do we need to know?
It's enough to know that the market is competitive and new models with better prices are released often. This means you should have a way to switch models.
The entire market is subsided more than it is competitive. The market wouldn’t exist the same as it does today if it weren’t being propped up. Thats the point.
I remember the days when I had a $2000+ credit balance on Uber because I mastered their referral program. “Free” uber blacks for 2 years!
When you’re using free shit that you should probably be paying more for, it’s good to not fool yourself.
In the Uber example, the fact that Lyft also existed at the time didn’t matter to me as someone happily riding around the city in Uber Black for $0. Unfortunately Lyft’s referral program wasn’t so lucrative so I couldn’t switch…
> Are you saying that all of them are actually losing money?
Are you saying these companies are operating on anything resembling a sustainable business model?
I think not!
If OpenAI needs to impose 5 hour limits during a time where they are aggressively trying to grow market share, what do you think they (or whatever the winning provider is) will do in 5 years once they IPO and need to boost margins?
They won’t be as friendly with usage caps as they’re being now.
`needs to impose 5 hour limits ` I'm no OpenAI defender but that's like saying Apple is going bankrupt because they charge for their products. Why wouldn't they do everything they can to turn $20 users into $200 users?
Exactly. It is common knowledge that all the AI companies have terrible margins. IMO tokens are the cheapest they'll ever be as these companies compete for users.
To the extent that the 3rd party inference resellers are a viable market because of Chinese/certain US AI labs (current) willingness to absorb substantial compute/R&D/data harvesting costs while releasing weights on permissive licensing terms for free, then yes, current pricing is distorted.
Openrouter is not so open as well, right? They take the middle man cut by enforcing their own limit restrictions and 429s on top of the model provided limit restrictions and what not.
Now why would I pay a middle man anything if I can get the same hosted model without their own whimsical service limits?
Aware that this is essentially a soon to be deprecated service. As any vendor you need to know the life expectancy of it, plus forecast/predict any pricing changes. You really do not want to become dependent. Even if competitors exist, there still some non trivial cost to switch
agree and underscores the idea that you should keep your setups portable between model providers by using external memory systems and connector gateways
I've definitely done this, but not sure if the workflow was at the OS or browser level.
I'm honestly confused by all the negativity in the comments. Passkeys are great for convenience. Just leave your password login enabled as a backup. That defeats any security benefit, but oh well.
reply