... it's Apple Intelligence.

The current issue of Private Eye suggests Apple has also dropped an ad because it was showing an "AI" interaction with a phone that is currently not possible.

Alexa knows what day it is.

Having worked in a few financial organisations, it's possible that many of the 50% are individuals working for themselves, rather than an outsourced company providing multiple staff.

The benefit for the individual contractor is a decent daily rate (versus being permie) and not having to worry (too much) about the corporate nonsense that goes with any large organisation. The benefit for the company is the downsides for the individual: no severance, short notice to cancel contract, no holiday pay, no training, no sick pay etc. Overall the bank benefits because it's "cheaper" to use a contractor over a permie.

To be clear not suggesting fraud, just that clever - but not magic - thing looks to have done something clever. So yes, to it's impressive but not quite the simplistic view some of the headlines are suggesting.

Looks like it. Angela Collier debunks it pretty thoroughly but it's mostly output of LLM seems to be representative of what when into the LLM (so LLM was working but not in a magic way of "hey human, try this original idea that none of you have thought of", etc.).

The bit about it replicating unpublished research seems to be explainable by... the LLM actually having the document and that being overlooked by the person involved. (So no magic about Google always listening either, etc.)

I'm sure creative insightful original thought AI is - or is going to be - possible in some contexts but this isn't it. A few people in Google or funded by Google appear to be hyped about it, some that aren't are suggesting the LLM output looks like historic papers as might be expected. Google's ALM seems to give better results than others but then it has better input.

It's getting reported as an AI-scientist type breakthrough, which it doesn't seem to be. The damage here is that anyone skimming headlines will think something AI-ish has happened when it looks like it hasn't.

Full credit to Angela Collier, and see https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

This is AI-hyperbole and mis-reporting. LLM aggregated existing reports and summarised them, nothing more. And the reporting about unpublished paper is not true.

... feel the volume. It's difficult to measure productivity accurately, but poor management can measure time at a desk! More must be good!

Staff would hate it and feel stressed and have no personal life. Must be good for business!

If only working 90 hours/week enriched the person doing the work...

The singularity will actually be when technology becomes pointless. Have AI write your emails! Have AI read your emails! What's the point. Why not just come up with a better means of communicating and models for working?

Previously, Google developed an agent to make telephone appointments for you. Nice for the user, a misery for the poor bugger talking to an AI. Why not just make IT ubiquitous through open APIs, etc. that make this direct and simple.

Technology used to solve problems. Now it's turning into a hose of high pressure sewage that can be pointed in random directions to enrich the few at our expense. Yes, sometimes that's useful. But not always.

Having said that, I can see that multilingual subtitles generated automatically would be a big win in many case but I think our point otherwise stands. (Just to clarify, I know this is the internet, but I'm essentially agreeing with you!)

I don't think Carlsen really needs FIDE. At this point I don't think he cares if he has 47 or 48 titles. But FIDE need high profile players for sponsorship, etc., and Carlsen is still the biggest name at the moment.

There are enough 30+ age players looking at the end of their careers that a few might take up the Freestyle thing with Carlsen, and never player FIDE competitions again. Nakamura has suggested he's been close to retiring and a couple of breakaway competitions with sponsorship and decent prize money might be enough for him to play out. There are a few others that might think their chances of getting to play a FIDE world championship match in classical time control might be dwindling too.

Carlsen isn't playing championship matches because he wants the format to evolve and FIDE is resistant. How this progresses through 2025 could be interesting.

An effective response would be to stop using Facebook/Meta. If you don't see the ads in the first place then they have no business model.

If enough people did the same they'd change. (And I'm not hypocrite: I had a Facebook account but closed it completely several years ago. It's possible to live without it.)

But he'd have still have to avoid illegal double shunting having used the District line. Are you suggesting that we assume the revised Taylor-Fischel 1985 rules apply?

That's more of a risk on the Northern Line, but he should be safe on the District.

Reading this I can't help thinking the singularity will actually be when AIs are reading emails/documents, and then sending other AIs emails/documents. What's the point

At least if this is Google they'll kill it after two years when they get bored and try something else. In the meantime let's remember that a lot of AI products will be pushed by companies whose profit is coming from ad sales. They could be aiming to make life easier, or could finding new ways to spam adverts and sell personal data.

I know this is the internet and it should just be random contradiction and elevated antagonism, but yes, yes you can.

I think that's probably what they were going for, and it's a reasonable impression to have, certainly.

1. 1. I do. I don't. Not me.
2. 2. It's a throwaway post on the internet, you stop crying.

I think there's an irony parade happening here. Thing happened. Comments made on thing. Some comments prompt seeing thing if thing not seen initially.

To fully explore your logic here pretty much nothing would ever deserve any comment, then? You imply you have AdBlock but try saving more of your time by 1) not reading stories about things that don't matter; 2) not replying to comment made about stories that don't matter. And stop crying.

But lesson learnt: we should all try having the same opinion as you do on things you consider important. Point taken.

As you missed it the first time: not everyone cars that (apparently) a trumpet was destroyed. Some of the negative response to this is that the ad could be interpreted as being quite arrogant as anything tangible that can be used creatively can be replaced by an iPad. Yes, tablets are wonderful things. Yes, you might think the very thin and expensive option is the best possible choice. Yes, it might even provide people who can't afford or are otherwise able to use some real creative tools an opportunity for creative.

But the implication that a magic tablet replaces everything appears to have rubbed some creative people - arguably Apple's self-identifying customer base, at least historically - up the wrong way.

To be fair, I can see that being a very reasonable take. But the stuff is all being destroyed so possibly a little ambiguous.

Maybe it's a bit dependent on what you think about Apple in the first place. Previously, I'd expect this reaction from those - me included - that might be a bit put off by the slightly arrogant veneer around their products. (E.g. the typical insinuation that they've invented, rather than refined, everything; the hints that Apple products are a lifestyle, and not a technical choice, which is fine but from experience some users are a little evangelical...)

Now it's interesting that some of the more pro-Apple people seem to think that this is a bit much. But, after all it's not like they're killing puppies, so I'm still filing under don't care, but with a slightly irritated sigh.