541–550 of 663 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’ll just link to some random unrelated court ruling.
If you think that's the case, you should really give current LLMs another shot. The version of ChatGPT from 3 years ago has more in common with the average chatbot from 50 years ago than it does the ChatGPT from today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pretty great at linking you to primary sources Do you check all of the sources though? Those can be hallucinated and you may not notice unless you're always checking them. Or it could have misunderstood the source. It's easy to assume it's always accurate when it generally is. But it's not always.
> It's easy to assume it's always accurate when it generally is. But it's not always. So like a lot of the internet? I don’t really understand this idea that LLMs have to be right 100% of the time to be useful. Very little of the web currently meets that standard and society uses it every day.
By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…
> I think it should be adopted as standard journalistic practice in fact -- reporting on court rulings must come with the PDF. Bafflingly, I’ve found this practice to continue even in places like University PR articles describing new papers. Linking to the paper itself is an obvious thing to do, yet many of them won’t even do that. In addition to playing games to avoid outbound links, I think this practice comes from…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is you started with a link. Explain the case like news did and see what comes out.
A link to the court case (not the news article) seems like a valid starting place when asking for background and a summary of the case.
Im concerned about bootstraping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't read science/tech articles from major news outlets for this reason. They NEVER link to the papers and I always have to spend a few minutes searching for it. This doesn't happen nearly as often on smaller sci/tech news outlets. When it does a quick email usually gets the link put in the article within a few hours.
Would you mind naming or even… linking to a few such outlets?
https://www.404media.co/this-stunning-image-of-the-sun-could...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> … reporters covering court cases… never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story This is an editorial decision and not something individual reporters get to decide. Headlines are the same.
It is also meant to lessen the legal burden: when they don't link to primary source, nobody can claim the is inaccurate, missing essential facts or made up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't call it dead, but it is declining. Their various sources of traffic are now regurgitating Wikipedia Content (and other 3rd party sources) via uncited/unlinked AI "blurbs"...instead of presenting snippets of Wikipedia contents with links to Wikipedia to read more. It's not the only reason their traffic is declining, but it seems like a big one.
Who cares if the traffic is declining? I don’t find Wikipedia useful because it gets lots of visits, I find it useful for the information it contains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FLOC/Cohorts API, AMP, Manifest V3, Widevine, WEI.
None of those are web standards. They are web technologies, but they arent standards unless other browsers agree to it. So pray tell, what should the browser do? Just sit on their hands, like Firefox? That's a classic example of how a browser could be mismanaged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. Enforcement is incredibly slow (all of the monopolies Google has been ruled against for were obvious in 2014, with appeals they will not face penalties until at least 2030 for most of it), and we have a dictator running the country who will create or erase any case with the right amount of fealty payments. (Google's million to the inauguration fund just... wasn't enough.)
I mean you can't blame Trump for this one. Trump 1's DoJ initiated this case. Trump 2's DoJ asked for structural remedies e.g. breaking up Google (can't remember if the Biden DoJ was the first to talk about breakup, they probably were, but Trump DoJ carried on with it). The news of the day is that the JUDGE told both Democrats and Republicans, as well as a supermajority of the American public, no you can't have what…
By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…