> You don’t “train a human.”

In this context, "train" a human makes perfect sense.

Yes but this is the recurring "Two Minutes Hate, the Sam Altman Edition" HN thread. We all know it's a dumb criticism, we're just going along with it.

Yeah, it makes sense, and the Atlantic is typically adverse to confronting reality. I don't think they took this from exactly the right perspective. You DO train a human. But Altman says:

>>It also takes a lot of energy to train a human

as a caveat to the energy it takes to train GPTs. The question I believe the writer is trying to ask is: Why is it better to train a GPT than a human?

Jeeze, save some for the rest of us!

I feel like the bigger issue - from an anonymity perspective - is that she is publicly showing her real face while doing these things, no?

You think the bigger issue is the thing she does voluntary, and that the lesser issue is that Grok leaked something without her consent, that she protected for over a decade?

Are you serious?

From a privacy perspective, doing something voluntarily doesn't negate anything. It's still the bigger privacy issue.

All it takes is for one person to recognize her for her name to be known.

how did grok gain access to this supposedly private information? Did it pilfer her private emails? Did it hack the producer's website and gained access to confidential files? Did it look through her computer?

Look, I hate grok just as much as the next person but if it was just crawled then by definition it is not private.

You may very well argue that people are harassing her (and that it's not ok), you may even argue that AI should not facilitate such harassment but to call publicly available information private is mental gymnastic.

> how did grok gain access to this supposedly private information? Did it pilfer her private emails? Did it hack the producer's website and gained access to confidential files? Did it look through her computer?

Or just read the Instagram and Facebook pages for this stage name. This "private" info is right there.

If the bigger issue to you is that people have a face attached to their bodies then you are off base.

It needs to be compatible with iOS apps, not Android.

Why so? Last time I checked Android had more apps available, especially FOSS apps.

Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V. There. Done!

"Objectively, a reasonable person would not kidnap and ultimately murder a defenseless person because they were scared,” Mr. Scott told the jury.

That doesnt sound objective to me at all.

It sounds objective to claim a reasonable person would not kill a person because they felt scared. Based on the video footage[0], a reasonable person would be able to tell that woman presented no threat. Even if you argue shooting her in the leg because he was scared, it is nearly impossible to claim he was still scared and he has stalked her around her car and then shot her five more times. That is objectively, an unreasonable response to being scared when it’s apparent the woman was not endangering his life.

[0]: https://youtu.be/RSlOY39ynaY

Keep the result in space, and use large telescopes to look at it!

the result is the result. If you look at it and use it for something, you have moved the result. Its not a physical object that exists in a place, its an idea. Hence IP. Intellectual property.

Really depends on how good your lawyers are

I assume this is only for purchases made using the app, right?

Otherwise it just wouldn't make sense. Google gets a cut of all revenue, Apple gets a cut of all revenue, x, y, z, ... there would be nothing left over.

Newspapers an even longer head start!

If you’re in the public beta program you’ll already have this update.