51–60 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how Internet standards work. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
This was a contract between two companies, written by a product manager and a CEO. It wasn't a technical RFC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This choice of wording in systems engineering is not ambiguous, and should effectively means optional. These words are often in capital letters trying to highlight the importance of it. It is absolutely not limited to RFCs, and is often used in a software specification. Product manager and CEO _should_ know better. It's very understandable that they don't - and I have empathy for them, but unfortunately they're wrong…
Sure, and hence the company won. The point here is that language can have very specific meaning. There is a difference between 'should' and 'shall', even though most people would think they're effectively the same. If I said "You should complete that task" to one of my team I'm not really giving them the choice and leaving it up to them. I'm telling them to do something. Outside of RFCs and contracts language is a bi…
The discussion here is not if it was trained or not in Gmail data, but on personal Gmail data. And that the definition of personal is vague and subject to interpretations. They can say it was not trained on Gmail data because it was trained with Google’s Smart Compose, which it was trained on Gmail data. Gmail Data -> Google’s Smart Compose -> Bard It all depends on where you draw the line to stop reporting. Language…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the present tense to answer a past-tense question is hardly unambiguous. "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" doesn't answer the question. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to have realized that big corps have teams of people to frame their public statements with carefully chosen words to present issues in the best light for them, even if it's deeply misleading.
> "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" To me this unambiguously says both that I did not send an email to him and I don't intend to. Is it really ambiguous to you?
I think most native English speakers - if they were reading/listening carefully - would interpret the mismatch of verb tense as an intentional attempt at not answering the question while simultaneously sounding as if it does.
If someone gave me that answer to that question I would repeat the question to them with an emphasis on “did.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the present tense to answer a past-tense question is hardly unambiguous. "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" doesn't answer the question. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to have realized that big corps have teams of people to frame their public statements with carefully chosen words to present issues in the best light for them, even if it's deeply misleading.
> "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" To me this unambiguously says both that I did not send an email to him and I don't intend to. Is it really ambiguous to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who wrote that reply? A Googler? Is there a screenshot? This would be a gigantic GDPR lawsuit. This reminds me of not communicating with Gmail users. Gmail has been evil forever since "personalized" ads.
At the moment, for some reason Google seems almost untouchable. I mean, single handedly destroying the browser market by deceit and abuse of market position in broad daylight, you'd think sooner or later EU or someone would force them to pay and put up a browser ballot on Google.com, but so far, no. Luckily the French consumer protection agency has at least forced them to implement the cookie question thing almost so…
It's not single handedly, it's every developer handedly.
First thing any dev does is install Chrome, and make their normal friends install Chrome, even when -- for example -- it destroys the battery life on their Macbook while breaking a variety of usability conveniences. When pressed, it turns out most of this is cargo culting, they actually haven't turned on developer tools or compared performance or memory handling, much less experienced the remarkable security and privacy integrations* available in co-shipped Safari browser.
Having observed the browser wars since before NCSA Mosaic, I'd argue not Google but a set of "tech influencers" well represented on HN made this happen, not Google.
In the longer context, HN's clamor to force iOS off Safari, the only significant bastion against a monoculture and one ad company's complete grip on visibility of all web use, is shocking.
---
* For instance, various anti-tracker and IP anonymizing capabilities, plus a built-in and cross device syncing password manager that even supports TOTP codes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think that part 4 and "what bard has to say about this" sections would make most people question Google's comment. 4. Google has never denied that Bard was trained on data from Gmail. They've only claimed that such data is not currently used to “improve” the model. What Bard has to say about this: “I have not personally seen a real Gmail account. However, I have access to a massive dataset of Gmail emails, an…
> Bard is an early experiment based on Large Language Models and will make mistakes. It is not trained on Gmail data. -JQ How exactly are you interpreting that statement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have added replies which have been removed, reading the article it's actually not as conspiratorial as you make it seem. In this case I really think it prudent to assume the worst from Google as they don't really have a positive history for walling off users data, be it personal email or phone meta information. > "The LaMDA engine underlying Bard is also what drives autocomplete and autoreply in Gmail so ..…
Who wrote that reply? A Googler? Is there a screenshot? This would be a gigantic GDPR lawsuit. This reminds me of not communicating with Gmail users. Gmail has been evil forever since "personalized" ads.
No. They are not available in the EU.
At least, I assume this is how Google thinks about it.
Why was this flagged?