een geode samenvatting (al is het daqr misschien wat lang voor) van de rare dingen in wordpress-land de laatste tijd:

You don’t hurt users because you’re beefing with their host. You don’t put innocent bystanders in harm’s way.

It no longer matters what this was all about at that point, or whether you were originally right or not. You are irreversibly the bad guy now.

It’s also worth calling out a side effect of this move, which may or may not have been deliberate:

Matt’s actions have ensured his hosting companies are now the only WordPress hosts that can guarantee something like this will never happen to their users.

At a little after 2 p.m., Engelhorn walked into the room, wearing a navy vest, a white collarless shirt, and round metal glasses. She is thirty-two, with a voluminous wave of short brown hair. Her left arm is covered in a sleeve of tattoos. “Redistribution means recognizing that wealth comes from society and should return to society,” she told the council members. She spoke of wealth as power—a power she didn’t earn and doesn’t want.

Generative AI is ripping the humanity out of things. Built on a foundation of theft, the technology is steering us toward a barren future. We think machine learning is a compelling technology with a lot of merit, but the path generative AI is on is wrong for us.

We're here for the humans. We're not chasing a technology that is a moral threat to our greatest jewel: human creativity.

Procreate komt met een duidelijk statement.

A photographer has been disqualified from a picture competition after his real photograph won in the AI image category.

Johansson said that nine months ago Altman approached her proposing that she allow her voice to be licensed for the new ChatGPT voice assistant. He thought it would be "comforting to people" who are uneasy with AI technology.

"After much consideration and for personal reasons, I declined the offer," Johansson wrote.

Just two days before the new ChatGPT was unveiled, Altman again reached out to Johansson's team, urging the actress to reconsider, she said.

But before she and Altman could connect, the company publicly announced its new, splashy product, complete with a voice that she says appears to have copied her likeness.

To Johansson, it was a personal affront.

"I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference," she said.

In the EU, the GDPR requires that information about individuals is accurate and that they have full access to the information stored, as well as information about the source. Surprisingly, however, OpenAI openly admits that it is unable to correct incorrect information on ChatGPT. Furthermore, the company cannot say where the data comes from or what data ChatGPT stores about individual people. The company is well aware of this problem, but doesn’t seem to care. Instead, OpenAI simply argues that “factual accuracy in large language models remains an area of active research”. Therefore, noyb today filed a complaint against OpenAI with the Austrian DPA.

This is the story of how Google Search died, and the people responsible for killing it.

I have a preprint out estimating how many scholarly papers are written using chatGPT etc? I estimate upwards of 60k articles (>1% of global output) published in 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16887

How can we identify this? Simple: there are certain words that LLMs love, and they suddenly start showing up a lot last year. Twice as many papers call something "intricate", big rises for "commendable" and "meticulous".

Zach Seward, “the editorial director of AI initiatives at The New York Times” over slechte en goede voorbeelden van het gebruik van AI bij nieuwsplatforms.

People look at tools like ChatGPT and think their greatest trick is writing for you. But, in fact, the most powerful use case for LLMs is the opposite: creating structure out of unstructured prose.

Overall, we find that participants who had access to an AI assistant wrote significantly less secure code than those without access to an assistant. Partici- pants with access to an AI assistant were also more likely to believe they wrote secure code, suggesting that such tools may lead users to be overconfident about security flaws in their code.