hanspeter

6 ms·

1.
by hanspeter 3mo ago
Zuckerberg has spent billions trying to keep Meta's models relevant, somewhat unsuccessfully. If only he had known he could simply use his laptop to train them.
2.
by hanspeter 5mo ago
Well, if that is how you manage other hazards in the home, then yes. I would recommend another approach though. We decided for making changes to our home to allow our toddler to be safe in our home environment without being notably constrai
3.
by hanspeter 5mo ago
While I agree we'll see millions of bipedal robots, it won't be because they're doing our chores. People will buy them for the same reason I'd want one today: They're fun toys. It's been 10 years since Boston D
4.
by hanspeter 5mo ago
That's not a robot problem, that's a toddler problem. We don't leave our young toddlers to roam freely around the house for a reason. Our homes are full of hazards to these risk-seeking small people and a robot is just one mo
5.
by hanspeter 6mo ago
It most certainly isn't astrology that was on Google's mind when they decided for Gemini.
6.
by hanspeter 6mo ago
> 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC Please don’t repeat this anti-Europe myth. Anyone applying a bit of common sense should realize how improbable that claim is.
7.
by hanspeter 7mo ago
It has always been like this. Plan before you code. Now your plan is just in a prompt.
8.
by hanspeter 8mo ago
Calling this a "Protip" is generous. That the combined element has any surface area that doesn't toggle the radio setting is a straight-up bug. It is laughable for a component this heavily refined to have such a basic usabili
9.
by hanspeter 8mo ago
Their point may be about viewing distance. If the edges of the screen are further from your eyes than the center, the content and text doesn't appear at the same size. If you wear glasses, the edges might even fall out of focus unless
10.
by hanspeter 11mo ago
This is an interesting claim. How many is plenty and what are the sources to back this?
11.
by hanspeter 11mo ago
It's basically a failure of setting up the proper response playbook. Instead of: 1. AI detects gun on surveillance 2. Dispatch armed police to location It should be: 1. AI detects gun on surveillance 2. Human reviews the pictures and v
12.
by hanspeter 1y ago
What's the point of saving money if it's a risk to reputation?
13.
by hanspeter 1y ago
I'm not new to simonw. It doesn't change that this is just a quote from a reddit post and a link to it.
14.
by hanspeter 1y ago
Is there more to it, or are we calling the situation out of control based on a single anecdote from Reddit?
15.
by hanspeter 1y ago
With per-per-minute sharing cars having existed in many cities in Europe 10+ years, this concept is not new. People will adapt to the level of cleanliness in the car the get into, so it's a slippery slope. Users will behave respectfull
16.
by hanspeter 1y ago
The initial "Share" click doesn't post anything publicly. It just opens a modal so you can choose to post. You have to make a second click to confirm.
17.
by hanspeter 1y ago
Users are playing around with AIs for entertainment all the time. You wouldn't be able to determine if seemingly private information was real or made up.
18.
by hanspeter 1y ago
Share buttons offer no inherent privacy settings. Sharing to a text message is private. In contrast, sharing to social media platforms such as Twitter, Reddit, Pinterest, and LinkedIn makes the content public. The destination determines the
19.
by hanspeter 1y ago
People share AI chats all the time on Twitter, Reddit, etc. I don't personally think the feature makes a lot of sense in Meta AI. However it's a lot more likely their product team genuinely thought it might do, than it is likely t
20.
by hanspeter 1y ago
I don't think this is a dark-pattern problem in the sense that I don't think it is _intentionally_ deceiving. I think Meta fully expected this feature to be used by people who are excited about their conversation with the AI and w
21.
by hanspeter 1y ago
> > Provide full transparency about how many users have unknowingly shared private information. > Meta shouldn't have to do this And couldn't either. How would they know if users shared unknowingly?
22.
by hanspeter 1y ago
It's not only hypocritical, it's nonsensical in this discussion. It's obvious that if advertising was made illegal, we would need to pay for all those services that we want to use. YouTube premium is the best example of how t
23.
by hanspeter 1y ago
How would that be easier to come by? Who would maintain such information repositories and what would the incentive be to take that on? (As they no longer could be supported by ad revenue.)
24.
by hanspeter 1y ago
It's interesting that you leave out Google (and similar search engines). We would lose one of the most useful tools introduced to mankind in the last 3 decades.
25.
by hanspeter 1y ago
Could you explain how you arrived at the $3.50/month figure? The model I understand you're suggesting is individual pricing based on usage and value as an ad target. A lot more complex and opaque than a straightforward fixed fee f
26.
by hanspeter 1y ago
While they don't add fluoride, the natural levels in German tap water can reach 0.3 mg/L. Compared to the US recommended level of 0.7 mg/L in fluoridated water, that's not an insignificant amount.
27.
by hanspeter 1y ago
Is LinkedIn illegal in your country?
28.
by hanspeter 2y ago
Exactly, saying it’s the easy part. But even without a job, you still need energy and motivation. The tax of switching between tasks (or hobbies) doesn’t magically disappear. Neither does the time suck of social media.
29.
by hanspeter 2y ago
It seems counterintuitive that Google would deliberately make AI in Search difficult to avoid. User satisfaction is a key driver for search engine development. If users are generally unhappy with the AI integration, that feedback would like
30.
by hanspeter 2y ago
Aren't those solutions to problems as well? Find the best questions to ask. Find the best hypothesis to suggest.

More ›