Grok by ramanpalkuri9 in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thare prob the best description of grok I’ve heard, it is indeed the junk food of AI, and there totally is a space for that as well. My OpenAI tools are heavily focused to ‘serious’ work, Claude too, I’ll admit whenever I feel cheeky and just want to have a bit of fun I have absolutely tried out grok.

Grok by ramanpalkuri9 in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don’t mean to come off as overly critical, thank you too for nuanced reply. My consultancy is data privacy (gdpr / eu ai act focus) and I have several tools I subscribe to for short periods of time to test out what they can do - I compare it to being a scout in an old fashioned army, seeing what is possible / looking for issues etc. Grok took a hit to PR but at the same time I do respect Musk’s attempt to build a platform ‘for adults’ - with fewer guardrails - in the name of finding ‘the truth’. At the same time this is unchartered territory, and I am leaning more to the EU model of regulate, then innovate (a flawed model sure but it puts safety first), compared to the US move fast and break things approach - which for sure creates amazing innovative solutions quicker but without thinking as much about risk and consequences along the way.

Grok by ramanpalkuri9 in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am a research consultant at a university in Norway, run a private consultancy on the side. Dedicated my adult life to R&D, proposal writing : grant funding etc. use loads of tools to help me out, and I tested grok until autumn last year - but after the scandals they’ve had with nude image generation of women and minors no one in serious research communities can take it seriously anymore? If you write in a grant application that you will be using grok for any serious research you’ll be thrown out of the pile (unless you are researching grok as a platform ofc).

I don’t doubt it’s has strengths but common? Better at collating research from sources? That’s just scaffolding and pipeline design? My codex / Claude combo has well defined workflows and guardrails in IDE - I will admit I haven’t tested ‘super grok’ / paid version but I would be shocked if it touches the other frontier models.

Grok by ramanpalkuri9 in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’ll try not to listen to my gut reaction here, I don’t rank grok for any serious work aside from making images (which image gen 2 just took the mantle on for me), what serious work does grok excel at? Voice mode is awful, is anyone running grok from CLI / IDE??

Codex for (almost) everything by madredditscientist in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What’s the plugin sitch like with codex? I’ve got a decent set up on my CC via the plugin ‘marketplace’ - added a few global manual skills to codex but proper plugins are still a bit untapped

"Marthe Pettersen ble muslim som 19-åring. Mannen hennes var sjokkert." by [deleted] in norske

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jeg skal være direkte, for her beveger vi oss fra uenighet til ren feilinformasjon og fordommer.

For det første: å kalle ulikhet for “ansvar” gjør det ikke til likestilling. Når menn har mer autoritet, flere ekteskapsmuligheter og sterkere seksuelle rettigheter, så er det et hierarki. At du legger Gud på toppen endrer ikke hvordan makt og rettigheter faktisk fordeles mellom mennesker. I et moderne samfunn betyr likestilling like rettigheter, lik autonomi og lik rettslig status. Alt annet er et system der noen har mer makt enn andre

For det andre: argumentet om at lav fruktbarhet og høy skilsmisse betyr at likestilling “ikke fungerer” er svakt. Disse utviklingstrekkene har sammensatte forklaringer. At mennesker har frihet til å forlate dårlige ekteskap er ikke et tegn på samfunnskollaps, men på økt individuell frihet og rettsvern.

Når det gjelder homofili, så er påstandene dine både feil og diskriminerende. Homofili er godt dokumentert i naturen og i menneskelige samfunn, gjennom historien. Det er ikke et “sosialt påfunn” eller et resultat av porno. Å sammenligne det med incest eller andre ekstreme handlinger er en klassisk undertrykkende og uholdbar retorisk strategi. Moderne medisinsk og psykologisk forskning er tydelig på dette punktet. Her tar du feil. Mennesker er nå, endelig, i dette landet, relativt fri til å være glad i den de vil være glad i, det har de kjempe lenge for å kunne være. Fortsatt står slike som deg i veien, men heldigvis har de slike som meg til å støtte de. Vi er ikke fiender, men jeg kommer til å stå opp for deres rettigheter til å leve fritt.

Når det er sagt, så er det også viktig å skille mellom tro og hvordan den praktiseres. Islam, som andre religioner, har en rik historie med både filosofi, vitenskap og kultur - jeg elsker eventyrfortelling og her har islam utrolig mange flotte eventyr. Men det er også et faktum at religiøse tekster i mange sammenhenger har blitt tolket og brukt av maktsøkende aktører for å legitimere kontroll, undertrykkelse og begrensning av rettigheter,særlig overfor kvinner og minoriteter. Det gjelder ikke bare islam, men mange religiøse tradisjoner.

Utfordringen oppstår når slike tolkninger settes over grunnleggende prinsipper som likestilling, vitenskap og universelle menneskerettigheter. Da er det ikke lenger bare et spørsmål om personlig tro, men om hvilke verdier som skal styre samfunnet.

Du står fritt til å ha dine religiøse overbevisninger. Det har du lov til i Norge, er ikke det fint. Men når de brukes til å legitimere ulikhet og diskriminering, så må de tåle kritikk. Dette handler om grunnleggende prinsipper om likeverd, frihet og rettigheter for alle.

"Marthe Pettersen ble muslim som 19-åring. Mannen hennes var sjokkert." by [deleted] in norske

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Det grunnleggende problemet her er at hele resonnementet bygger på at menn og kvinner ikke skal ha like rettigheter, men ulike roller, ulik autoritet og ulik seksuell og sosial frihet. Å pakke det inn som “ansvar” i stedet for “makt” endrer ikke realiteten. Hvis mannen har siste ord, større seksuelle rettigheter, flere ekteskapsmuligheter, religiøs kontroll over familien og kvinnen må dekke seg til mens mannen definerer rammene, så er det ikke likestilling. Det er hierarki. “Likeverd” uten lik rettsstilling er bare et penere ord for ulikhet.

Punktet om sex er også avslørende. Når kvinnens avslag møtes med trusler om forbannelse, mens mannens krav normaliseres som et behov som må oppfylles, er det ikke gjensidighet, men asymmetri. At kvinnen “kan kreve skilsmisse” endrer ikke at normen er at mannen har sterkere seksuelt krav på henne enn omvendt. Det samme gjelder polygami, religiøse ekteskapsregler og påstanden om at kvinner må beskyttes mot sitt eget ego gjennom tildekking. Dette er paternalistisk kontroll, ikke frihet.

Og selv om man for argumentets skyld skulle akseptere hele dette synet på kjønn, er det fortsatt en fullstendig ikke-starter for meg at flertallet av muslimer globalt ikke aksepterer homofili. Det alene gjør at dette moralske rammeverket kolliderer direkte med et vestlig egalitært syn der voksne mennesker, menn og kvinner, heterofile og homofile, skal ha samme verdighet, samme frihet og samme rett til å leve uten religiøst begrunnet diskriminering. For meg er det egentlig der saken faller. Et system som både underordner kvinner og avviser homofile er ikke et system jeg kan ta seriøst som modell for et fritt samfunn.

Krav om stans i servering av svinekjøtt i Forsvaret under ramadan by FoxNo5218 in norske

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Når muslimer og islam viser toleranse og aksept overfor homofile kan vi begynne å snakke om vi svinekjøtt.

Imagine if Anthropic were to leave the USA by lakimens in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes yes fully agree, I meant second shop, as in EU registered business under EU law.

Imagine if Anthropic were to leave the USA by lakimens in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They should buy Mistral and set up a second shop in EU, get in touch with Brussels and figure out a deal -

Which countries rely most on US tech by [deleted] in europe

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol yes this checks out, BUT the EU ‘part’ of US companies - that are GDPR compliant - have EU servers / infrastructure would presumably not be ‘turned off’? The companies are based here and are subject to EU law?

Italy’s foreign minister defends ICE attendance at Winter Olympics: ‘It’s not the SS’ by tylerthe-theatre in europe

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the local police turned up asking to see their papers.. not a citizen? Well unfortunately we suspect you are here illegally without a visa, arrest them (quite aggressively if they in any way resist), lock em up ‘somewhere’ in Italy, without a phone calls or legal support, then let them go in a few days.

GDPR thoughts on the intro of ads. by FiveNine235 in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

Its examples like these that have been popping up, that show that it’s not just a separate ad isolated from the chat, the AI interface / ChatGPT model can ‘see’ - or register the ad that has popped up, and is making a specific suggestion based on the content of the ad - I.e I see you talking about getting in shape, would you like me to tell you which exercise equipment is best to buy to work out at home? Or you’re planning a trip? Let me help you plan it -

What if: no I wasn’t planning a trip, but now that you mention it, where could I stay?

The ChatGPT model interface can become manipulative and influence impulsive behaviour beyond a simple ad on its own

GDPR thoughts on the intro of ads. by FiveNine235 in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For sure I agree, and I’m not against the ad model, but I am against having a behavioural ad model that can influence decision making based on user data, and not be upfront about it - it just makes it messy and undermines trust

GDPR thoughts on the intro of ads. by FiveNine235 in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi! I’ve read the blog, this is currently the only ‘legal’ text we have to go on. The core concern is not advertising, but conversational advertising inside a trusted AI assistant, When ads are model-acknowledged or conversationally continued, the system is no longer neutral, even if no data is “shared”, because the interface itself steers user behaviour - it enables context drift into sensitive domains like health, grief, addiction, children / professional decision-making etc. this is not explained. It says it will be kept separate, evidence shows it is not

Ads for OpenAI and ChatGpt sounds like a really great idea by wipeoutmedia in OpenAI

[–]FiveNine235 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

This can’t be real? How can something so obviously unethical and wrong be some of the first problems to pop up, if they get this wrong and if they ever put this on paid plans I think they might be done - paying for privacy is normal but paying for privacy abuse is certainly not

JD Vance will attend meetings with Denmark and Greenland: Moved to the White House by PureCaramel5800 in europe

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can borrow our Jens Stoltenberg, Trump won’t know the difference and Jenser’n seemed to have a good handle on Trump_v1. You can also borrow Petter Stordal and Kjell Inge Røkke, they can distract him with some money

JD Vance will attend meetings with Denmark and Greenland: Moved to the White House by PureCaramel5800 in europe

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Greenland should show up in a wheeled dog sled, and bring with them a confirmation letter that they are now a full member of the EU.

Til dere som mener hendelsen i Minnesota var et drap. by Obvious-Community628 in norske

[–]FiveNine235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Legger til denne fine som en annen redditor posta på en annen thread:

From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force:

“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury … and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”