There are working end-points and they tend to be stable. If you find a Mullvad server which works with Reddit, you can configure a socks5 proxy for a Firefox container assigned to Reddit (or any domain). This way, Reddit will always use the connection of the working route and your general internet experience isn't affected otherwise. Eg. you can still switch around connections to find a working one for Youtube... Don't forget about this setting, since sometimes a Mullvad server is down temporarily and the container's assigned domains won't resolve (usually enough to count up/down the Mullvad proxy id). This will also prevent you from accessing Reddit without a Mullvad VPN connection.
Not quite, that’s more like taking pleasure in the misfortune of someone else. It’s close, but the specific relief bit that it is not _your_ misfortune is not captured
Thank you! On top of that, it’s hard to measure “potential suicides averted,” and comparing that with “actual suicides caused/assisted with” would be incommnsurable.
And working to set a threshold for what we would consider acceptable? No thanks
If you pull the lever, some people on this track will die (by sucide). If you don't pull the lever, some people will still die from suicide. By not pulling the lever, and simply banning discussion of suicide entirely, your company gets to avoid a huge PR disaster, and you get more money because line go up. If you pull the lever and let people talk about suicide on your platform, you may avoid prevent some suicides, but you can never discuss that with the press, your company gets bad PR, and everyone will believe you're a murderer. Plus, line go down and you make less money while other companies make money off of selling AI therapy apps.
....but if you pull the lever and let people talk about suicide on your platform, your platform will actively contribute to some unknowable number of suicides.
There is, at this time, no way to determine how the number it would contribute to would compare to the number it would prevent.
Seconded. Throwing a bunch of data into an LLM and calling the result financial analysis is one thing, the results being at all trustworthy and valuable is another. I’d like to see an independent piece of analysis compared to this bot’s output for the same company and the original data.
On an even more basic level, throwing data at an LLM and telling people you "built an AI" pretty much blows any chance of anyone taking the results seriously.
“There's a library I use with extensive documentation- every method, parameter, event, configuration option conceivable is documented.”
This is the perfect use case for ChatGPT with web search. Besides aside from Google News, Google has been worthless to find any useful information for years because of SEO.
The fact that you personally would use a different tool is surely neither here nor there. It's like wading into a conversation about car problems and telling everyone that you ride a motorbike.
Alas, there does seem to be a strong tradition of that on HN. The car example is apropos, though instead it's more like "why do you own a car? I live in a hyper dense urban utopia and never drive anywhere!"
It's not an XY problem or anything to do with customer service. It's more of a UX problem. Users are being presented with highly convenient AI summaries that have a relatively high level of innaccuracy.
It’s more like you are choosing to use a tool when for the use case cited, there are much better tools available. Maybe the new interactive “AI mode” for Google would be a better use case. But the web has been horrible for years trying to search for developer documentation instead of going to the canonical source because of all of the mirror sites that scrape content and add ads.
