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.
It sounds like exactly what I would want, if it were open source, audited, and under my direct control.
I really don’t get users.
Google already has the capacity to be doing this level of analysis on your data that you gave them to host for their own private internal purposes.
But we should reject the opportunity to have that aggregate picture of our data turned back over to ourselves to make the most of what’s already the case?
This really reminds me of the saying “nothing about the situation has changed, only your information about the situation has changed.”
deleted by creator
suggests either these people are so detached from reality, or they are appealing this to very specific sets of people under the guise of a general appeal
not even family member know everything about life
is private
Oh dont worry, we already have the data. This is just a formal announcement. Your new bot will arrive in 5 days.
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.
Google has announced the closure of Project Ellmann, ending minutes of speculations
You’re just being cute, right?
Project Ad-mann.
Mmmmm, how intimate? Will it know…everything? blushes
A chatbot that needs to mind its own damn business, I say.
No thanks.
paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaass
Bring it on, I’ll make it hate me
deleted by creator
According to the people who know me intimately, the AI is gonna nope out even harder than I am.
Google can’t even serve me ads in the right language right now so… doubt this chatbot thing is going to work
And it’s named freaking “ElIman”? L
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.
_ /\ _
Nope.
Google can’t even keep a podcast service going. I certainly wouldn’t trust them with a little buddy that I care about.
