Of all the companies to offer an AI assistant, Meta? Really‽

Meta, darling... You built your reputation around invading people's privacy, then selling it. You're literally the worst possible candidate for anyone to trust with being their AI assistant.

Stick with improving open source models like Llama and maybe—just maybe—you can offer a hosted Llama service of some kind as long as it's a paid option with guarantees about privacy. If it's free, we all know what that means. Please don't go there.

You sell ads—not based on anything innocuous like "what the user just searched for" or "what they're currently chatting about", but based on intimate dossiers you've built up about people that are more detailed than what Nazi Germany kept on people they decided were enemies of the state.

I know your executive are thinking, "with this much private info about people, we can give them much more personalized chat responses!" But the truth is no one wants that.

It's already creepy enough that Facebook and Instagram will show ads based on what people were talking about near their phones, and you want to start passing that level of privacy invasion to an LLM‽ It's going to recommend married people sign up for dating services, get divorces, put silicone lube "w/PTFE" on pizza (because you have data in their profile saying they just ordered some of that), and similar wildly inappropriate suggestions/responses.

Chat bots should know topics. Not you.

In JavaScript, this.

He must've obtained his position by eating his competitors.

I take exception to that programmer bullet! We always have reasonable conditionals for any and all jargon. There's actually an eponymous law about this, pointing out what happens when someone is wrong on the Internet. It's called Beckstrom's Law.

I recommend Obsidian for keeping track of events like this 👍

Non-euclidean cat furniture is the best.

This comic is absolutely true: The AI companies don't give two shits about getting consent before feeding content into their AI training databases.

But it's also true that they don't need it. They're not redistributing the works, so it doesn't matter (from a copyright perspective).

Courts have already reaffirmed our right to save stuff that gets delivered to our computers over the Internet. If we changed that rule, it would mean the end of the Internet, Lemmy, memes, etc.

AI companies suck—yes—but don't let anger at their behavior convince you that removing everyone's basic rights is a good idea.

Should you need consent before recording the police committing a crime?

Should you need consent to cite/copy someone's work in order to critique it?

Should you need consent before quitting your job?

Not everything needs consent and in fact, the entire concept of requesting consent flies in the face of our rights in many scenarios.

There's a whole lot of people—in power—that would love it if everything required consent.

Consent is a complicated topic that should not be talked about like it is all black and white.

Actually, there's a whole lot more swearing and pounding of the desk. Fists shaking in the air and screaming, "Anthropic!"

Are you sure? It is the cheesiest of quests.

Babybel cheese is for kids.

Elderbel cheese is for when you need something so sharp you could kill someone with it.

I don't know about this prompt...

NO CARRIER