Yeah! I saw reporting on this months ago.

What I appreciated about this article was the detail about how they tried to hide it.

Also I love GN. Thanks for sharing!

That’s interesting. I’ll need to look it up.

I never really watched LTT even before the controversy. The story about the woman who moved to Canada to work there then got fucked over kinda turned me off so I started avoiding them. Something about it just felt icky but maybe I’m wrong about that.

I tried watching MKBHD but something about him feels off too.

Maybe I’m the problem.

C-Suite execs are probably the one thing LLMs could actually replace and save the company more money than layoffs, but it’ll never happen.

Companies aren’t democracies. They are monarchies with the illusion of democracy via shareholders.

It’s the confusion between and LLM and AI.

LLMs are just algorithms that understand language. They don’t really think for themselves. They just search the database of stolen ideas and try to apply it.

But we all use those words interchangeably they basically mean the same thing.

Hell yeah. Those people are smart. I hope they get super rich on fixing AI nonsense.

I hope it works like that.

I love Ed. He is the personification of my emotions.

Don’t say AI found it, just an algorithm caught it.

Could have been as simple as a spreadsheet highlighting cells with a ratio that was below a threshold.

Article didn’t say what software was used.

Edit: I meant “didn’t say”. Autocorrect has been really going after me lately.

The article said it was an algorithm that detected it, not AI.

Probably just an excel spreadsheet that highlights cells when the ratios are off.

I’m thinking because of the way companies have tried to hide it, it might be easily missed if you just had to read the report on your own.

Doesn’t matter if they can replace coders. If CEOs think it can, it will.

And now, it’s good enough to look like it works so the CEO can just push the problem down the road and get an instant stock inflation

This headline is a bit misleading. The article also says that only 2/3 of the errors GPT found were verified errors (according to the author).

• Overall, ChatGPT identified 56 supposed errors in these 31 featured articles.

• I confirmed 38 of these (i.e. 68%) as valid errors in my assessment. Implemented corrections for 35 of these, and Agreed with 3 additional ones without yet implementing a correction myself. Disagreed with 13 of the alleged errors (23%).

• I rated 4 as** Inconclusive** (7%), and one as  Not Applicable (in the sense that ChatGPT’s observation appeared factually correct but would only have implied an error in case that part of the article was intended in a particular way, a possibility that the ChatGPT response had acknowledged explicitly).

I have been called out.

The whole company is gross. I forgot about this.

I encourage parents to talk to their kids about online safety but specifically come up with a plan. I’ve written this in a few comments, but u really believe it helps.

Ask them what they do if a stranger says something that makes them scared or uncomfortable. Ask them what they would do if it’s someone they know like a friend or a family member. Help them come up with a plan and identify a person who is a safe person to tell. Someone parents and kids trust, often it’s an aunt or uncle.

A parent is fine too, but at a certain age, I find kids seem to be afraid of getting in trouble or maybe just uncomfortable talking to their parents about sex, so having a 3rd party that the kids and parents trust is a good back up option.

Bc of what I went through with my ex’s kid, I talk help parents talk to kids about online safety. It’s good that you are so proactive!

The #1 thing I see parents miss in those safety talks is coming up with a plan when something bad happens so kids know what to do.

I spoke to my 14 year old niece last weekend. She wants to use Snapchat but her parents said no. I asked her what she would do if she got a dick pick from a stranger. I asked her what she would do if her boyfriend sent her one. Various situations like that.

She didn’t know what to do, so together, we came up with a plan and identified an adult in her life that she would feel comfortable talking to that isn’t her parents. A third part adult that you and your kid can trust is helpful for kids that are afraid to talk to their parents and get grounded.

For example: if your kid is online after they got grounded and something bad happened, they might be afraid to tell you since they weren’t suppose to be online, but maybe they’ll be okay speaking to an aunt or uncle.

Every situation is different

Also, I did grow up with AIM and all that nonsense and I did get predators talking to me constantly, especially on AOL and Yahoo. Crazy that we had such different experiences during that age.

Yeah. I wouldn’t let my kids in Roblox personally bc of how the company has tried to ignore the problem . if parents just took time to understand it and talk to their kids about safety, it would solve many problems, not just in Roblox.

I’m very against Roblox. I know a kid who had a really hard time with online predators and a lot of it stated with Roblox. He’s 19 now. He and I were talking about it recently.

Parents think Roblox is like Minecraft bc of the aesthetics of the game. But, Roblox is not a game with a chat feature, it’s a chat room with some games. That’s a big difference.

They have 380 million users. Around 60% of the user base is under the age of 16. 40% is under the age of 12. That’s 152 million mostly unmonitored kids.

I’m sure Roblox has gotten better moderation during that time, but in our experience predators meet kids on Roblox and get them to exchange Discord or other contact info with them.

Discord is also a problem here, but that’s for another rant in another thread. If you are concerned about your kids and want to discuss it with me, feel free to message me.

TLDR: DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS PLAY ROBLOX unless you are actively monitoring the game.

Yes. They brought like 17 or members of the El Chapo family into the US already to resettle.

That and the thing where GamerNexus caught them benchmarking incorrectly, then selling off prototypes that they didn’t pay for. It’s not a good look for their integrity.

GN found a bunch of other errors but LTT won’t retest because of the aforementioned selling off prototypes they were given.