This is discussed in the article, and I think the author makes pretty reasonable arguments for why by nature we will not see the reliability of LLM usage improve. They also discuss what I agree as the more effective method of using an LLM is, as a feedback and refinement tool, not a decision maker.
> This is not a limitation that can be overcome by LLMs. Their generative value is in their unreliability. If you turn temperature down to zero, you get a deterministic machine - but you also break every meaningful application I know of in production.
This is not a reasonable argument. Setting the temperature down to zero does NOT give you a deterministic machine. And I have never seen that break any application in production, quite the contrary.
Patents are public. Ingesting and innovating on them is the intended use. If you use an LLM to then make and market something that infringes on a patent, that isn’t the LLM doing any infringing, it’s you.
> are you even aware that you're infringing a patent?
Plenty of folks first learn they’re infringing when they get a demand letter. Unless you ask it, I’m not sure it’s on the LLM to search for prior art and patent conflicts.
Citation needed. You lot elected him before, seems likely you elected him again. Pretended he won by cheating instead of because your democracy is in dire need of a refit will do little but alloallow the next facists to win as well.
Not OP. I believe it is from folks like this. It is compelling but it can also difficult to pin down the exact details. They rely mostly on statistics based oddities.
I do appreciate that they are not interested in over throwing the 2024 election, just ensure that any possible gaps are covered for future elections.
> The Election Truth Alliance is initiating a call for hand counts of paper voting records associated with the 2024 U.S. General Election, and is advocating for full hand counts prior to certification for all future U.S. elections.
I used to handle DSAR requests for one of the big 4, we'd redact the names of other people on joint accounts / mortgages / etc. Obviously the requestor would know these (I hope), but someone elses name is not your personal data. We redacted those names to be compliant with GDPR, so I dont think there's any case here.
If anything the case could be made that sharing the names of who viewed your profile when you pay for premium is a GDPR breach, but I dont use LinkedIn so don't know if theres any way to opt out of this. If there is (i.e private profile), then under GDPR it's fine. Still a bit scummy but like its LinkedIn, its purpose is networking, best route here is not using it, not trying to make the argument that other peoples personal data is yours because its somewhat related.
Not entirely convinced who viewed your profile falls under your personal information
Source: used to handle DSAR requests for one of the big 4 banks, we'd redact all names that weren't the requestors, even names on a joint account they'd obviously know
Potential argument under GDPR you could request LinkedIn to not share who's profiles you are viewing, but thats a separate issue
Actually the GDPR definition of personal data is very wide, a bit to wide in my opinion (one of the reasons GDPR is not always taken serious) but that is a different topic.
IANAL but the way I read it is that any data that can be linked with you as a natural person could be considered personal data.
Therefore if LinkedIn is saving a log in a database similar to: "profile x viewed person y" and profile y has your name that would qualify as personal data in my view.
Especially interesting is the section "Personal data and the purpose for processing" since LinkedIn is selling access to the data of who viewed your profile the perspective of if it is or is not personal data may be shifted.
To be fair the overwhelming majority of tests I've seen in the wild written by humans have been the same. Not a lot of good material for AI to learn from.
This assumes US citizens using exclusively US based VPNs. You'd have to block all outside internet access as well, or you cannot stop someone in the US using a VPN based in another country (short of IP whackamole).
To an extent, but the US often compels foreign companies to either not deal with US customers or put up with US’s bullshit, so they could potentially get compliance from major overseas providers. More onerous domestic policy could also prevent it, like requiring that domestic network providers block unauthorized encrypted connections to foreign entities. And anyways, making something illegal doesn’t actually require making it physically impossible to do.
You'd also need to ban VPNs in other countries, which you cant, so short of stripping all access to the internet outside of America there's not a lot you could realistically do.
reply