Something like it is basically a requirement if you want to see digital ads. Advertisers want to know how many people who saw/clicked their ad went on to make a purchase.
Safari and Firefox should isolate the cookie by default.
Plenty of people want ads. Every time someone asks “hey ChatGPT what do I need to buy to fix my sink” or “hey Claude what’s the best cat food” or “what’s the best island in the Caribbean for me to visit” they are specifically asking to see an ad.
It turns out that the only way to make money online is ads.
Nobody is going to pay for ChatGPT. They'll just use the ad-infested version, like they do everything else online. Well some people will pay, but not enough to justify the insane amounts of money being poured into it by investors.
A bigger problem is that it will be impossible to know when you are seeing an ad: political groups (or the government, perhaps) will partner with openAI to subtly express different values.
It's still an advertisement, and the underlying marketplace is similar (pay for access to change behavior).
The best uses of AI will be surveillance, propaganda, cyberterrorism, and automated military tech.
The only movie I've ever enjoyed after reading the book was Jurassic Park. I've never seen the Dune movies or most other book-based movies, but honestly The Martian and Project Hail Mary were tempting. I'll probably surrender to one of those two someday.
The most recent Dune movies pull off the incredible feat of being a better telling of the tale than the book, but only if you already know the tale from the books. They’re not beginner-friendly, but they’re extremely respectful to the book reader, while still make conscious (and in my opinion, positive) changes to the story.
I might disagree with this. To me, the joy of the books was developing a deep understanding of the societies and their norms. This felt almost entirely missing from the movies, which focused more on events. This is fine--they're different mediums, after all, but the second movie in particular left me a little disappointed.
I think this is kind of my point -- there's no way to develop that level of nuance in a movie. The options are to take way more time (see Silo), to do a crappy job (see... almost every 2 - 3 hour movie), or to instead change the goal: Don't have the viewer "develop… a deep understanding", but down-select to those viewers who already respect the work and have that deep understanding, and instead focus on showing them the society and its norms. Do what movies are great at -- make a story come to life -- and make the viewer/reader do the work of knowing the background, knowing what they're seeing, knowing what's important.
This feels like the most ridiculous option and one I've never heard in the wild. Sequel-ite, S-Q-lite, sure. S-Q-L-ite, nah I'm not buying that. Kinda like the inventor of GIF insisting on pronouncing it wrong (I kid)
Sure, and I'm not arguing that the answers are uninteresting, but I found it odd that this is being double-quoted several times as if it was taken out of the article.
It has had a revival with the Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses. I don't know about Silicon Valley, but you frequently see it in tech-oriented forums when the topic comes up.
reply