I recently attempted to use the Google Drive integration but didn't follow through with connecting because Claude wanted access to my entire Google Drive. I understand this simplifies the user experience and reduced time to ship, but is there anyway the team can add "reduce the access scope of Google Drive integration" to your backlog. Thank you!
Also, I just caught the new Github integration. Awesome.
I could see the cost of licensing data to train models increasing significantly, but the cost of compute for training models is only going to drop on a $/PFLOP basis.
I can say from using the chat interface, Claude 3.5 is a top tier model for coding tasks. I used ChatGPT Pro previously, but I really find the experience of using Claude much more enjoyable overall.
It was a good brand name when it launched, but not for how it evolved.
It was a device that made it possible to cast video from your Chrome browser. When it was released in 2013 it reinforced the superior utility of Chrome which had just began to dominate browser market share.
Embedding the Google Cast protocol directly into video streaming apps and having the Chromecast brand name coexist alongside the Android TV and Google TV brand names made things confusing.
From a communication strategy standpoint, I'm just curious what the thinking was to go with 'Little Tech' to refer to new tech startups? I understand the purpose is to succinctly stand in contrast to 'Big Tech', but the word 'Little' somehow feels a bit more cutesy or infantilizing to me than saying 'Small Tech.'
Mark probably figured Meta would gain knowledge and experience more rapidly if they threw Llama out in the wild while they caught up to the performance of the bigger & better closed source models. It helps that unlike their competition, these models aren't a threat to Meta's revenue streams and they don't have an existing enterprise software business that would seek to immediately monetize this work.
It's also worth pointing out that a company doesn't have to hold a meeting where they vote to deliberately target and exploit vulnerable members of the public, instead they just use an algorithm that constantly optimizes for making them money and which eventually figures out exploiting people is easy and effective.
Those companies generally know it's happening, and often do set out to make it happen just like they've always targeted ads at young children and teenagers whose brains aren't developed yet, but the algorithm gives them plausible deniability.
Who needs evidence when there is no real enforceable penalty for doing so? Credit card companies sell our data. Ancestry services probably sell our data. They might put signs in the windows saying "your data is safe with us" but that's pretty much where any amount of trust we place in these companies ends and becomes blind faith.
I always love reading myopic technology takes on this site.
Based on the article, it sounds like they're in exploratory talks to figure out what that "AI device" could be. I agree that it's likely we've already figured out the right form factors for such a device, but it's not a leap to imagine a significantly better UX than what we have from today's computing devices.
The movie "Her" seems like a decent blueprint for a post-smartphone "AI device".
I recently attempted to use the Google Drive integration but didn't follow through with connecting because Claude wanted access to my entire Google Drive. I understand this simplifies the user experience and reduced time to ship, but is there anyway the team can add "reduce the access scope of Google Drive integration" to your backlog. Thank you!
Also, I just caught the new Github integration. Awesome.
reply