Not even -- it's a simplified Civilization clone for mobile. (It actually sounds like a pretty neat little game, but, uh, chess it is not!)

Thank god I can have a button on my mouse to open ChatGPT in Windows. It was so hard to open it with only the button in the taskbar, the start menu entry, the toolbar button in every piece of Microsoft software, the auto-completion in browser text fields, the website, the mobile app, the chatbot in Microsoft's search engine, the chatbot in Microsoft's chat software, and the button on the keyboard.

I mean they do throw up a lot of legal garbage at you when you set stuff up, I'm pretty sure you technically do have to agree to a bunch of EULAs before you can use your phone.

I have to wonder though if the fact Google is generating this text themselves rather than just showing text from other sources means they might actually have to face some consequences in cases where the information they provide ends up hurting people. Like, does Section 230 protect websites from the consequences of just outright lying to their users? And if so, um... why does it do that?

Even if a computer generated the text, I feel like there ought to be some recourse there, because the alternative seems bad. I don't actually know anything about the law, though.

yeah, I definitely think machine learning has obvious use cases to benefit the common good (youtube auto captions being Actually Pretty Decent Now is one that comes to mind easily) but I'm much less certain about most of the stuff being presently marketed as "AI"

It's like pickup artistry on a societal scale.

It really does illustrate the way they see culture not as, like, a beautiful evolving dynamic system that makes life worth living, but instead as a stupid game to be won or a nuisance getting in the way of their world domination efforts

The problem is just transparency, you see -- if they could just show people the math that led them to determining that this would save X million more lives, then everyone would realize that it was actually a very good and sensible decision!

yeah, my first thought was, what if you want to comment out code in this future? does that just not work anymore? lol

I definitely think the youths are stressed because of 'environmental pollution,' but not in the way this commenter means...

since we both have the High IQ feat you should be agreeing with me, after all we share the same privileged access to absolute truth. That we aren’t must mean you are unaligned/need to be further cleansed of thetans.

They have to agree, it's mathematically proven by Aumann's Agreement Theorem!

This is good! Though, he neglects to mention the group of people (including myself) who have yet to be sold on ai's usefulness at all (all critics of practical AI harms are lumped under 'reformers' implying they still see it as valuable but just currently misguided.)

Like, ok, so what if China develops it first? Now they can... generate more convincing spam, write software slightly faster with more bugs, and starve all their artists to death? ... Oh no, we'd better hurry up and compete with that!

I had the same thought as Emily Bender's first one there, lol. The map is interesting to me, but mostly as a demonstration of how anglosphere-centric these models are!

“We want to make sure that you see great content, that you’re posting great content, and that you’re interacting with the community,” he says.

I feel like using the phrase "great content" unironically is sort of a tell that someone has no idea what makes 'content' 'great' in the first place

Relatedly (and relevant to this article) I feel like the funniest part of the whole AI bubble has been executives repeatedly unwittingly revealing that they could be replaced by a simple computer program