> The State’s second argument concerns TikTok’s representations about whether its “Restricted Mode” feature effectively filtered out content that might be inappropriate for minors. TikTok claimed that Restricted Mode “limits the appearance of content that may not be appropriate for all audiences” and that users “shouldn’t see mature or complex themes,” such as “profanity,” “sexually suggestive content,” “realistic violence or threatening imagery,” “firearms or weapons in an environment that isn’t appropriate,” “illegal or controlled substances/drugs,” and “explicit references to mature or complex themes that may reflect personal experiences or real-world events that are intended for older audiences.” For years, the State argues, TikTok employees internally
recognized that Restricted Mode was not functioning in the way it was marketed and exposed users to a high volume of content that should have been filtered out.
There absolutely is such a thing as epigenetic inheritance. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomic_imprinting Epigenetics is a pretty broad term. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of environmentally-induced expressions, however, has never been firmly demonstrated in mammals, let alone humans. There's a bunch of needles that need to be threaded to achieve it, for example modifying gametes, then sneaking past the epigenetic resetting that occurs during meiosis, etc. Repeat the feat to cross more than one generation.
There's a ton of extravagant claims and overly credulous reception driven in part by powerful cultural narratives. AFAIU, epigenetics in the popular discourse has different connotations then for most scientists. And when a scientist says epigentic processes are beyond dispute--because many of them are clearly established as key to some basic developmental processes--the lay person takes this as validation of, e.g., epigenetically inherited intergenerational trauma. But there's tremendous distance between those two extremes, both semantically and physically.
As a thought experiment, there's a big difference between "3 companies share 70% of a market, while 30 companies sharing the remaining 30%", and "30 companies share the whole market, none being larger than 8%".
In the former example, there's far more pressure on the smaller companies, which is why in such a regime people expect more consistent quality from the big guys, and the smaller guys are often boutique in some way (=offering something unique in their service/product in order to be able to compete). Small guys have a hard time standing up to big guys.
On the other hand, in a regime where no one becomes that huge, like the latter example, there's still pressure, but the competition is fair, just like if all the companies were similarly big (except that you can't have that many big companies in a single industry, by proportion definitions).
Realizing this drove home why inconsistent antitrust enforcement appears to produce bad results. Because it leaves us in the state of the former example. It's also unfortunately the intermediate state of getting serious with antitrust enforcement.
You're talking about different measures / types of quality.
> Anyone who thinks AI is good with writing code that is hard to write for the operator, not due to lack of basic software engineering know how but complexity of the domain, either has access to models beyond what is available to the public or is completely lost.
You could read it as quality in the operational correctness sense, but just as well in the software architectural design sense. My comment indeed applies to only one of those.
However, why judge correctness as a "cringe on quality", rather than just objectively saying its producing errors. This is why my response is in the software direction.
Agreed. The recent privacy kerfuffle with Grok CLI (plus the untrue "it's your fault" response, although they then changed the behavior) is a really bad sign for how your code and data will be the treated.
> It’s hard to collect enough data using invasive methods. Few people want a chip in their brain! But non-invasive methods are getting much better. The hardware is improving and getting cheaper, though I apologize for being vague about the particularities of our hardware.
Their data acquisition routine was driven by Claude and they were recruiting random people off Craigslist pretty aggressively a few months back. I know a couple of folks who responded out of curiosity and described a very janky setup in the rented basements of a couple of residential houses in SF. From what I heard about the setup the data they got must have been incredibly noisy.
To the people who are sceptical here, I wouldn't count them out yet. They almost certainly can get funding with what they captured, which would get them better hardware. And given the state of brain scanning - people have captured images from scanned brain activity some years ago as I recall - I'd say they have a good shot. But yeah, it's not telepathy.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
reply