151–160 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Third, a lot of Pichai's big bets have failed: Google Glass, Google Plus, Google Wave, Project Loon > He's been responsible for a lot of Google products. He might have been responsible but i wouldn't call those projects as Pichai's big bets.
Pichai is there to keep the factory lights on and the assembly line running. Nobody is expecting anything more from him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to say, I find this bit amusing: "That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say." The last 4 years of US politics (and 20? of UK politics) have given the lie to that belief. [edit: added UK politics because they're just as bad]
Are you saying most people would answer Yes to "Are politicians trustworthy?" because then I clearly live in a completely different bubble than you do and have a very different interpretation of TV speaking heads talking about the issue. In my bubble at least 90% would say that US politicians are not trustworthy (no idea about UK). Not much different if you ask about Trump or Biden either.
People distrust politicians ... except. Except for their favorite politician, except for their party, except for the ones they voted for, except...
You see this with Congress writ large. People hate Congress, its approval ratings are through the floor. But they like their own Congresspeople. Sure, gerrymandering, safe districts, etc, but by and large people are much happier with their own Representatives than everyone else's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, Pichai's quote is taken out of context. In his capacity as Alphabet CEO, he worries about neutrality of the interconnects. TFA goes: > And, when I asked about whether the Chinese model of the internet - much more authoritarian, big on surveillance - is in the ascendant, Pichai said the free and open internet "is being attacked". Importantly, he didn't refer to China directly but he went on to say: "None o…
Toxic language online silences important voices. We’re exploring how machine learning can reduce toxicity online and create more space for healthy conversation. Throughout this report we use the term “toxicity,” defined as rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable language that is likely to make someone leave a discussion. We specifically use the term toxicity, as opposed to words like “abuse” or “hate speech” for both pr…
Scientific reasons? There's nothing scientific about a term so undefined that every person can have their own custom definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you guys factor the deplatforming they do into this or are you not aware that they are heavily involved in censorship on their platforms
Let me guess.. you're a huge fan of Tim Pool and the likes who constantly talked about how they are oppressed WHILE still on YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no open internet, there is nothing to index or organize. If anything Apple has does more harm than anyone to the Web by pushing the idea of native apps for everything served from a closed proprietary App Store that you can’t even side load around.
You can index and organize billions of AMP pages. You can index and organize the content of an intranet of every large organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same with typical sales persons: Even though they constantly exaggerate, you want to believe (unless there's animosity). So you take it into account that they exaggerate, but not by as much as they do exaggerate. Which means it's still better for them to do it than not. At least that's my impression of these dynamics, would love good studies about it.
It's well studied that over time people believe lies even if they know they are lies, because we remember things by association, not rigorously. We easily remember that X is associated with Y, but it's hard to remember if the correlation is to Y or to NOT Y.
So many AI models have been ridiculed for the same flaw - learning correlations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governmental incompetence exceeds their ability to regulate. Google have the capacity to pull off a lot more than Governments. Google would have a walled garden if they could afford to lose the users and manufacturers that would revolt against it.
Google's main product is letting people find stuff on the web. What benefit would a walled garden be to them unless everything was on Google infrastructure? They would need to control everything. They lose the most if the internet balkanizes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying most people would answer Yes to "Are politicians trustworthy?" because then I clearly live in a completely different bubble than you do and have a very different interpretation of TV speaking heads talking about the issue. In my bubble at least 90% would say that US politicians are not trustworthy (no idea about UK). Not much different if you ask about Trump or Biden either.
I kind of see it both ways. 90% of people would call all politicians liars, but every person in that 90% has their pet politician that can do no wrong.
There are currently 15 parties to vote for here in Denmark, with a government on average being based on 2-3 of them. A single person rarely get more votes than 1% in our elections because most vote for the party, not the person.