The driver is always responsible for using the tools within the car correctly and maintaining control of the vehicle at all times.
Either way the driver would be at fault. However, the driver might be able to make a (completely separate) case that the car’s defects made control impossible, but since the driver always had the option to disable self-driving, I doubt that would go anywhere.
Just like you don’t get off the hook if your cruise control causes an accident… and it doesn’t matter how much Tesla lied about what it may or may not be capable of, because at the end of the day it’s always the driver’s responsibility to know the limitations of the vehicle and disable the feature and take control when necessary.
I'm guessing this is the first one I tried subscribing to... so for whatever reason I managed to receive that one post, but then no subsequent posts, comments, or votes.
All of my Lemmy subscriptions seem to be working fine.
Mine is definitely more than just "a bit" broken. I have 20+ communities subscribed for over 2 months and 0 posts. No issues with any Lemmy communities.
Except the fediverse is highly resilient in this regard, since all of the data is replicated. If an instance goes down, all of that instance’s posts are still available on every other instance.
I don’t think it was ever turned off, it just requires the subscription to access GPT-4 and then enabling the plugins.
It was a closed beta before, but it’s been available to everybody for a while now.
There was also the version with Bing integration that they removed, which might be what you’re thinking of… but there are 100’s of other web search plugins available beyond Bing.
Sounds like the heuristic is taking multiple samples only uses them if they are within some consistency threshold, to hedge against the cases where the field has random data.
The reason it only fails rarely and randomly is because it only happens when multiple actually random timestamps happen to line up around the same time.
Sort of like how several applications (cough git cough) have failure modes when two different files happen to have the same hash.
Turns out developers are bad at statistics and probabilities and don’t understand the birthday paradox.
Except this article is completely incorrect and doesn’t even acknowledge the actual ruling responsible for this popular belief:
In 1919 the primacy of shareholder value maximization was affirmed in a ruling by the Michigan State Supreme Court in Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford wanted to invest Ford Motor Company’s considerable retained earnings in the company rather than distribute it to shareholders. The Dodge brothers, minority shareholders in Ford Motor Company, brought suit against Ford, alleging that his intention to benefit employees and consumers was at the expense of shareholders. In their ruling, the Michigan court agreed with the Dodge brothers:
These are not "mistakes", these are willfully evil acts.
I'm just going to quote another comment here:
Billet Labs sent their best prototype (as in, the only one they had) to LMG for review. Linus proceeded to strap it to a video card where it didn’t fit, so bad that there was a 1mm gap (which might as well be a million miles when you’re talking about cooling). Of course the performance sucked due to it being strapped to a card it wasn’t designed to fit, linus trashed the block and the company. And here’s the part that just fucks me off. Billet Labs SENT THEM THE CORRECT CARD WITH THE BLOCK! There is literally no valid excuse for putting it on the wrong card, Billet Labs sent them the correct one!!!
Combine that with the image in the OP, and there's just no excuse. These are not the actions of someone that "intends no malice". This is not an "accident". This is not a "learning opportunity". This is not a "mistake". This is a person doing everything in their power to selfishly extract every dime they can from both their viewers and this startup.
They intentionally lied to the viewers because trashing a product gets more views. They intentionally lied to the startup because they got more money from selling the prototype.
The driver is always responsible for using the tools within the car correctly and maintaining control of the vehicle at all times.
Either way the driver would be at fault. However, the driver might be able to make a (completely separate) case that the car’s defects made control impossible, but since the driver always had the option to disable self-driving, I doubt that would go anywhere.
Just like you don’t get off the hook if your cruise control causes an accident… and it doesn’t matter how much Tesla lied about what it may or may not be capable of, because at the end of the day it’s always the driver’s responsibility to know the limitations of the vehicle and disable the feature and take control when necessary.