Your comments now are a huge shift from
"That sounds like problematic use," the Instagram boss answered. He did not call it an addiction.
He also didn’t say it was a tomato.
Seems that, in the interest of accuracy, you should update them, lest you be the thing you claim others are.
I'm sure Brendan Eich has a normal vocabulary when he isn't talking about "glowies" or "h8ers"... Or when he's talking like Sephiroth
You know the fun part about LLMs? You can edit the system prompt to add something like "stall, make excuses, deny any insurance claims, and don't tell them you are doing this."
That's not a simplification either. Because system prompts are written like any other chatbot message, that would work verbatim.
privacytests.org is run by a chief Brave engineer.
Good luck figuring that out based on their website.
(Edit: the website home was last edited in August 2025, and Edelstein seems to have left Brave by October 2025. So during the time I was aware of its existence, the same person was putting Brave Browser at the top of privacy lists and working at Brave Browser HQ.)
This is what Cambridge Analytica (the one that illegally profiled Facebook users to help Donald Trump) says about Brave:
When you browse in Brave, the browser locally records your attention—which ads you view, for how long, what you click. This data never leaves your device in raw form, a feature Brave emphasizes repeatedly. But then it gets converted into tokens that represent your interests and behavioral patterns. These tokens are sent to Brave’s servers, where they’re matched with advertiser demand.
This is also what the Mozilla advertising network claims they do.
But Brave claims their ad network is truly private, while Mozilla's is not. I don't know if that's true, but it is true that Brave doesn't enable their ad network by default, and Mozilla does.
Either way, remember to disable the ad network.
And consider writing Mozilla a polite letter about turning it off by default.
People who submit AI-generated code tend to crumble, or sound incomprehensible, in the face of the simplest questions. Thank goodness this works for code reviews... because if you look at AI CEO interviews, journalists can't detect the BS.
Since you care deeply about truth or something, when will you be correcting your comments that, at best, lack huge amounts of truth that change the contents you put forth? At best, you accidentally skipped multiple paragraphs that contradict your claims. At less best, you knew better.
Pam Bondi, is that you?
In life, grandpa was a racist. In death, grandpa won't stop telling me about Volkswagen and Black Rifle Coffee.
@RemindMe@feddit.org about correcting misinformation in 24 hours
I fear for the future of reading comprehension. Before the portion Analog quotes, the article gives people multiple paragraphs of context to understand addiction as what is being talked about. I don't expect the word to be wedged into every sentence about the same topic. Meta's Adam Mosseri was clearly doing everything in his playbook to not use the word "addiction" in a sentence.
And Adam Mosseri knew better. We know he's been confronted with evidence of addiction but doesn't want to listen.
But I do find it much more concerning that Analog appointed himself judge of bad articles, then either accidentally or intentionally omitted the preceding paragraphs that I had to quote for him.
Hopefully it's apparent to all parties involved that the machine designed to commit plagiarism and launder that plagiarism through plausible deniability, should be treated with the highest amount of suspicion possible.
"If you didn't steal his voice, Sundar Pichai, where did you get it from?"