Geek Stuff category archive
Phoning It In 0
Apparently, reviewers are finding that the much-vaunted Trump phones don’t actually live up to their billing . . .
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. (Updated) 0
Ethical? Fuggedaboutit.
At the Psychology Today website, Cami Rosso reports on a study by researchers at Brown University. Here’s a bit from her article:
Addendum:
SFgate’s Drew Magary is less than thrilled about Google’s decision to force AI on users in its search results.
“Smile! You’re on Covert Camera” 0
The EFF reports a disturbing trend (emphasis added):
Our findings suggest that the absence of a warrant requirement has fostered a culture of unrestricted access to sensitive location data, allowing agencies to leverage that data beyond the scope of specific criminal investigations.
Much more at the link.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
Sucking you down the rabbit hole? Per El Reg, to Google’s Hotel California of AI.
Afterthought:
For you whippersnappers who don’t ken the reference to “Hotel California,” well, just Yahoo! it.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
A panderer to prurience? Why, it panders to prurience with picture-perfect perfection.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
A shill for merch? El Reg explores how Google plans to infuse its AI with ads.
(Another reason to loathe AI.)
Aside:
My new Anddroid cell phone keeps nagging me to use Google’s Gemini AI.
I keep telling Gemini to go away. (I don’t need nor want what amounts to a talking search engine that chooses search results for me, which is basically all that AI is.)
A couple of times, before I’ve gotten a chance to tell it to go away, it’s eavesdropped on my conversation and started talking on its own, saying stuff that is irrelevant to whatever the conversation was about.
As far as I’m concerned, AI does not stand for “artificial intelligence.” It stands for “annoying interrupter.”
Big Brother Business, Facebook Frolics Dept. 0
Meta employees caught in a mousetrap.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
A privileged communication? Or evidence for the prosecution?
Aside:
Yes indeedy-do. Yesterday’s B. C. comic pretty much nailed it.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
Over-hyped? El Reg reports that, paraphrasing cURL developer Daniel Stenberg, “. . . as far as Stenberg is concerned: They’re (AI bots–ed.) only as good at finding security vulnerabilities as the humans who programmed them.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
An accessory before the fact? That’s for the court to decide.
It’s All about the Algorithm 0
David talks about how the algorithm squelched one of his videos and the implications thereof for dis coarse discourse.
Aside:
If you click to “watch on Youtube,” you will find a link the video that David argues was squelched.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
A co-conspirator? Per ABC News,
Online resellers using AI to pretend to be mom-and-pop stores
Afterthought:
I recently bought a new cell phone, because my old one, after many years of faithful service, had reached EOL. Its battery was no longer holding a charge. It was a damned fine phone, but stuff does wear out.
The new one will not stop nagging me to use its AI bot, and I can’t make the nagbot go away.
Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I prefer real intelligence to the artificial fake.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
A learning aid? Not when it “thinks” for you: At the Psychology Today website, Joe Pierre reports (emphasis added) that “(s)everal studies suggest that while using AI can help get work done faster, longer-term learning is impaired.”
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
Are its hallucinations a threat to the rule of law? At Above the Law, Stephen Embry argues that, “(w)hen the public hears lawyers citing cases and laws that don’t exist, they conclude the whole system is a sham.”
“Am I a Party Guest or a Backdrop?” 0
Just in case you needed more evidence that “social” media isn’t.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
Pandora’s box? Hear from someone who took a peek.
Aside:
The danger of AI isn’t the “artificial intelligence” (sic) computer programs per se.
It’s human gullibility.
It’s something I’ve marveled at since I first started visiting BBSs (remember BBSs?).
It’s that persons will believe stuff that they see (and now that they hear) on a computer when they wouldn’t believe if it happened before their eyes.
Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0
Anti-intelligent? At the Psychology Today website, John Nosta argues that that is an appropriate term for AI. Follow the link for his reasoning.