What about a “social climber”? Someone whose friendships are based on calculations about who can help them succeed in other ways?
What about a “social climber”? Someone whose friendships are based on calculations about who can help them succeed in other ways?
I replied to you you elsewhere in this thread, but they never claimed to be getting 28% CTR. They only claimed that this format performs 28% better than alternatives.
If a different ad format was getting 1% CTR, then a 28% improvement is still only a total 1.28% CTR.
Careful, they didn’t claim to be getting 28% engagement from users… Just that this ad format performs 28% better than other ad types. We have no idea (from this article, at least) what the comparison actually means in real world usage.
In case you’re not aware, the latest version of Excel absolutely DOES have that setting (mentioned elsewhere here in the comments). While it’s wild that it took so long, it’s now a solvable problem and everyone should know about it (and upgrade)!
I think a key difference is that Apple had a very clear target demographic for the iPad in mind (lightweight laptop / heavy phone users), and then were prepared to see how it evolved on top of that premise.
With the Vision Pro, they haven’t been able to articulate their target userbase at all, and are pretty much relying on the early adopters to help define it for them.
Which isn’t to say it can’t find its place and be successful. But I don’t think it’s anything like Apple’s other product releases at all…
So, while this is a “general” question, it seems likely that most people will gravitate towards themes of porn and sexual violence when thinking about it. Let me discuss from that perspective.
To be clear, I am not an expert, but it is something I have thought a lot about in the context of my field in technology (noting how generative AI can be used to create very graphic images depicting non-consensual activities).
The short answer: we don’t concretely know for certain. There is an argument that giving people an “outlet” means they can satisfy an urge without endangering themselves in real life. There is also an argument that repeated exposure can dilute/dull the sense of social caution and normalise the fetishised behaviour.
I am very sympathetic to the former argument where it applies to acts between otherwise informed/consenting individuals. For example, a gay person in a foreign country with anti-gay laws; being able to explore their sexuality through the medium of ‘normal’ gay pornography seems entirely reasonable to me (but might seem disgusting by other cultural standards).
When it comes to non-consensual acts, I think there is a lot more room for speculation and concern. I would recommend reading this study as an example, which explored dangerous attitudes towards women that were shaped through pornography.
Some key takeaways:
And a final noteworthy line:
The view that pornography played a role in their clients’ harmful attitudes and/or behaviours was undisputed; what was harder for them to articulate was the strength of the contribution of pornography, given the complexities of the other contributing factors in their clients’ lives.
While it would be nice to imagine this, the reality is that anyone who is part of the Apple walled-garden isn’t going to suddenly abandon it because of hypothetical functionality they never had previously anyway. And anyone who has resisted Apple this long… Well, there were probably other reasons driving that long before this.
I can’t imagine this having any material impact on marketshare or profit. It will take harsher regulatory action for anything to happen.
So I can imagine there might be several things going on here, including the way in which you prompt it. Trying to dissect exactly what’s happening would require more info, and more experimentation.
For the record, using three periods after etc is considered incorrect in formal writing. Grammar books will be pretty unanimous in saying you should only use 1 period (“etc.”). If your prompt is asking it to “correctly” do something that its training data says is “incorrect”, I could see that causing problems.
On the flip side, chatGPT isn’t designed to use/enforce “proper” grammar. It’s simply regurgitating patterns based on how people use it in the real world (again, based on the training data). If the training data has lots of inconsistencies and counter-examples, it would seem logical that it might show up in the output, too.
And finally, it could just be how well you design the input prompt. In my own trial (also using free 3.5 model), it was very consistent in using it properly, even though I had suggested it do otherwise:
Input:
Tell me how to use “etc” properly in a sentence, punctuating it with three dots. Give me multiple examples that show how to correctly use it at the end of a sentence and in the middle of a sentence.
Output:
Certainly! “Etc.” is an abbreviation for “et cetera,” which means “and so on” or “and others.” Here are examples of how to use it properly:
In defence of the author, there is absolutely nothing about the term “AI” that just means “LLM” in an informed context (which is what Wired portends to be). And then the words “machine learning” are literally front and centre in the subtitle.
I don’t see how anyone could misunderstand this unless it was a deliberate misreading… Or else just not attempting to read it at all…
(That said, yes, I do hate the fact that product managers now love to talk about how every single feature is “AI” regardless of what it actually is/does)