• simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    11 months ago

    The presentation used the example, “Imagine ChatGPT, but it already knows everything about your life.”

    I’m impressed someone thought of that, wrote a presentation, rehearsed it, then presented it and at no point thought that it sounds creepy and invasive.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    11 months ago

    Oh dont worry, we already have the data. This is just a formal announcement. Your new bot will arrive in 5 days.

    • andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      The bot has already existed in a different form for years. Instead of you talking to it they asked it which ads are most effective to show you specifically.

      Google is not just getting into ML. They’ve been at the bleeding edge for decades.

  • DampSquid@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 months ago

    Google has announced the closure of Project Ellmann, ending minutes of speculations

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    Jokes on us tho. Google is going ahead with this, it’s just never going to made available for public use. It’s only to use for figuring out exactly what we’ll buy.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Why have a bot just figure out what consumers want when it you can also have it do direct marketing?

      This announcement wasn’t for consumers, but advertisers.

  • GravityAce@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Google can’t even serve me ads in the right language right now so… doubt this chatbot thing is going to work

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The right to NONassociation should always outrank the right to association.

    Molesters may claim the right to closely-associate, but the right-to-be-not-molested should outrank their association-right.

    Nonassociation needs to be a fundamental right.

    In multiple contexts.

    Abusees who want no-contact to have teeth,

    molester-survivors,

    etc.

    Including identity-molestation/theft, and other abuses of one’s personal information.

    _ /\ _