A bunch of these patterns are things that real human designers have been using for a while (with the exception of emojis everywhere). This is like how some people assume an em dash automatically means AI generated text.
If an agent under a company’s control commits a crime, the company has committed that crime. If we hold companies directly responsible for the actions of their agents, we may end up seeing companies being more secure with their testing and model development.
So this is a landing page made by someone who doesn’t maintain the actual tool? This strikes me as a potential scam—build some domain rep off someone else’s tool then capitalize somehow
Hits hard. I know this is wrong, but I often find myself resentful when I see colleagues burning the midnight oil (or otherwise putting in time that I no longer have) in service of career progression.
I think the author is spot on about ruthlessly optimizing the time you do have, though. That seems to be the only way to keep up.
> I often find myself resentful when I see colleagues burning the midnight oil
I don't care, especially with AI. I just let it do all the work and I take credit. Plus career progression after a certain point is useless - more responsibilities for smaller increases in paycheck.
I found that being a senior developer is the sweet spot for me - others have to think about the product and requirements and communicate and I just sit autistically in the corner and ship at my own pace.
> 600,000 ServiceNow tickets are another element of the collection, along with 13.7 million active emails addresses from Oracle’s Responsys marketing application, and details of 11 million sales of in-flight Wi-Fi services.
I don't see how it's possible any more, when correlated against all the various other data sources. And a record that might be unidentifiable now might become unique with more correlated data sources.
All you need is gender, birthday, and zip code to uniquely identify ~85% of the Americans (per some study). There is far more data in these records, even before AI there were far more detailed marketing profiles of people, and with AI software, it's likely easy to use it to identify people at scale.
Most laws are designed to accomplish specific objectives. For example, there might be laws about whether you can collect certain kinds of data, for the sake of privacy or protecting some attribute. As technology improves, however, it may become possible to collect different kinds of data (that are not regulated to not be collected) and still recover the original attribute.
For example, 20 years ago, few people would have imagined that you could build a fingerprint of a person from all their behaviors on the internet. You didn't need to regulate away certain kinds of data collection to prevent such fingerprinting because it wasn't possible. With ML and AI, it has become possible.
My point is that as technology improves, "de-identification" takes on new meaning. Whatever de-identification was 20 years ago is not what de-identification is today. And whatever de-identification was used here is probably insufficient to guarantee that customers can't be identified.
We need new regulations and we need them yesterday.
as an example, they can remove the names off these sales data, so you can't identify who purchased what items. However, the purchaser would be identified by some sort of number, and you would be able to extract information about purchasing habits, and aggregate these habits into usable information for advertising purposes (like targeting and profiling).
Anyone else have coworkers responding to your human PR review comments with AI? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, how can anyone find this socially acceptable?
reply