muthuk_vanalingam

VictorMortimer said:

jdw said:

ChatGPT4o, is the most brain dead stupid thing to come along in quite a while.  Sure, it does a few things surprisingly well, but it makes enormous mistakes of epic proportions every single time I use it. And when I attempt to correct it, it foolishly apologizes and then rephrases its stupid errors.  When I tell it repeatedly that it is in error, it repeatedly apologizes but never learns.

When I use ChatGPT via Bing (which I often do after my freeloader time limit for GPT4o runs out), it too makes mistakes. And when I get pissed off at it and give it a piece of my mind, silly Bing suggests I change the topic and a new session begins.  Totally hilarious that Bing is protecting ChatGPT!

Every single time I use ChatGPT4o in Chrome (which is the most reliable browser for it), at times when it gives me a clickable link, the link will never open when I click on it.  That forces me to tell it to give me links in plain text.  Why plain text?  So I can copy/paste it into a browser's address bar myself.  That's a work-around the "can't click the text link" bug, but quite nearly 100% of the time, when I finally am able to open the link, it yields a 404 or totally unrelated info.  It's maddening!

I am also not inclined to trust ChatGPT because it lies.  Because of it's blatant lies, I almost always ask it for links to its source info.  And that is how I know the links are bogus.  I sometimes believe what it tells me is true, but without a link to source info, I cannot trust it 100%.  I become especially doubtful when it gives me a link that leads to totally unrelated topics.

I mainly want to use ChatGPT to search the web faster and easier than I can Google something, asking it to check multiple sources.  Sadly, most of the time GPT4o misses info I know exists.  I often test ChatGPT based on what I know is out there on the web and is easily found by Googling.  Often times it misses that info when it does its own searches, and then comes back and tells me something wrong or incomplete.

I truly hate ChatGPT a lot of the time because it lies so often.  For example, I've recently been comparing OLED TVs and soundbars.  It tells me certain specifications that simply are not true.  When I point out its error, it apologizes and deletes the single error line, and then just repeats the rest it told me before.

Why do I even torture myself by continuing to use the stupid thing?  Because it sometimes does a decent job in very specific situations like summarizing text or rephrasing.  I prefer that use case because I am good enough in the English language to know if what it tells me is good or not.  But in other cases where I am looking for facts I don't know to be true, it often lies; and even when it doesn't lie, I try to get links to source info, but those links never work.

So it's a real love-hate relationship, but more hate than love.

It is totally and utterly laughable that governments and people around the world are afraid of AI.  Yeah right!  Maybe 100, 200 or perhaps 300 years from now it might be worthy of such fears, but at the moment it's not that far ahead of brain dead Siri.  It's no different than the fake promise of "self driving cars." That's not going to happen in my lifetime.  Truly autonomous driving means no human intervention is EVER needed, and you can drive in any situation, like mountain driving in the snow with sunlight reflections hitting the snow and blinding you occasionally.  Or driving on dark roads that aren't marked with paint.  Or driving off-road in the dirt.  Nope.  No matter what these car companies say, what they have now is little more than a joke.  It gives you a great first impression, but using the tech for a while shows how ridiculous it is.  

The PROMISE of AI is great, but it's far, far in the future before we can sit back and experience true "intelligence" that's "artificial."  What we have now in the world of AI is barely useable.  It's more entertainment than anything else.

I write all this to say that if Apple CHARGES MONEY for such digital stupidity, I certainly will not be lining up for a subscription, They have a LONG way to go before its worthy of dedicated fees and special charges.  We're very much in the R&D stage right now.  I say this in the hope of something far superior to what we have now, while at the same time, I am a realist too.  It's not great now, and it probably still won't be that great 10 to 20 years hence.  We need a real technological breakthrough to make a huge leap in usability.

It doesn't have to be correct to be dangerous.

It doesn't have to be correct for corporations to replace humans with LLMs.  It just has to be cheaper.

It doesn't have to be correct to be used for election interference.  It just has to repeat the lies the politicians want.

Was your rant out of a LLM?  It's only sort of triggering my "machine generated" sense, but there's a few bits that just seem a bit... off for a human.

chasm said:

I’m sure it a “small” audience (heh) for “mini-sized” iPhones, but its not insubstantial — and this is an area where they can get what they want from from the Android market. My wife has said many times she has zero interest in a phone any bigger than the current-gen SE, so I hope they will at least go on making that.

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

nubus said:

Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.

If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.

Apple has always been an open market player. 

So your fluff piece is moot. 

Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done. 

This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day. 

What stores dont do:

A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper. 

use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store. 

C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items
and rent) 

it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here. 

Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator. 

Common sense does not exist in European government. 

The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors. 

It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform. 

As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years. 

So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?

What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform? 

Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience? 

So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?  

If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.

You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those. 

I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users. 

Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.

Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?

MplsP said:

DAalseth said:

I’m going to go a different direction. I’m wondering if Apple pulled back because it didn’t want to be accused of trying to push into Banking. They already are getting grief over being too powerful and moving from computers into phones, then music, then media and streaming… Perhaps they didn’t want to open another front for people to accuse them of bad behaviour. It’s not like this side of things is bringing them much money. 

Agreed. Also, from what I've read in other articles, Apple Card users tend to be higher than average income and tend to pay off their balances more. That demographic tends to take advantage of 'buy now, pay later' offers less frequently and also tends to be better at avoiding finance charges meaning the program likely earns less money.

foregoneconclusion said:

dewme said: The Netflix CEO is pretty much at the same place that many of us are at with Vision Pro - "we'll see where things go" which means we will wait and see. I'm waiting too. The big difference is we're all waiting because there is about $4K of our hard earned cash on the line and we don't really know for sure how this thing will fit into our lives other than the gee-whiz and oh-wow factor

If you know how an 100" 4K OLED TV would fit into your life then you already know how the AVP would fit. And you would be saving multiple thousands of dollars by getting the AVP instead of the TV.