NotAnotherLemmyUser

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 18 days ago

I'm sure you understand this, but anonymized data doesn't mean it can't be deanonymized. Given the right kind of data, or enough context they can figure out who you are fairly quickly.

Ex: You could "Anonymize" gps traces, but it would still show the house you live at and where you work unless you strip out a lot of the info.

http://androidpolice.com/strava-heatmaps-location-identity-doxxing-problem/

Now with LLMs, sure, you could "anonymize" which user said or asked for what... but if something identifying is sent in the request itself, it won't be hard to deanonymize that data.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 18 days ago

What? No. I would rather use my own local LLM where the data never leaves my device. And if I had to submit anything to ChatGPT I would want it anonymized as much as possible.

Is Apple doing the right thing? Hard to say, any answer here will just be an opinion. There are pros and cons to this decision and that's up to the end user to decide if the benefits of using ChatGPT are worth the cost of their data. I can see some useful use cases for this tech, and I don't blame Apple for wanting to strike while the iron is hot.

There's not much you can really do to strip out identifying data from prompts/requests made to ChatGPT. Any anonymization of that part of the data is on OpenAI to handle.
Apple can obfuscate which user is asking for what as well as specific location data, but if I'm using the LLM and I tell it to write up a report while including my full name in my prompt/request... that's all going directly into OpenAIs servers and logs which they can eventually use to help refine/retrain their model at some point.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 18 days ago

I'd say the proof is on Apple to show that it's being done on-device or that all processing is done on iCloud servers.

You're saying that OpenAI is just going to hand over their full ChatGPT model for Apple to set up on their own servers for free?

But from the article itself:

the partnership could burn extra money for OpenAI, because it pays Microsoft to host ChatGPT's capabilities on its Azure cloud

I get it if they created a small version of their LLM to run locally, but I would expect Apple to pay a price even for that.

I think you may be confusing this ChatGPT integration with Apple's own LLM that they're working on...
Again, from the linked article:

Still, Apple's choice of ChatGPT as Apple's first external AI integration has led to widespread misunderstanding, especially since Apple buried the lede about its own in-house LLM technology that powers its new "Apple Intelligence" platform.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 18 days ago

Thanks! It's a good read and I like the idea of a private cloud compute (PCC) system, but that doesn't mention anywhere that ChatGPT will be running in that PCC system (if you were trying to imply that).

And while OpenAI could implement something similar to PCC, I haven't seen them announce that anywhere either.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

Then it's a good thing that no countries have pure capitalism for their economy.

We need regulation on corporations to keep them in check.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

If you're having trouble finding when it is enforced you can look at websites like this one that list out the many cases brought up against companies (for the U.S. at least).

http://ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

America doesn't have a pure capitalist economy.

A pure capitalist economy would have a free market system with no government intervention.

Almost every country has a mix between capitalism and socialism for their economies.

A pure capitalist economy is terrible just as much as a pure socialist economy would be terrible.
The trick is finding the right balance between the two.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

What would you propose as being better than the mix of capitalism and socialism that almost every country already has for their economy?

Both extremes lead to terrible outcomes.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

I'm just going off of the definition here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

We definitely don't have a pure capitalist economy since that would mean that there is no government intervention in the market.

And we do have parts of the economy that are owned/run by the government as socialism would suggest.

What would you call it, if not a mix of capitalism and socialism? Maybe a mix of Capitalism and Communism would be more accurate?

This article would seem to suggest that:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economy.asp

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

When I say pure capitalism, yes, I'm referring to laissez faire capitalism.

I can't think of any countries that currently have that, and I don't think we should want that.

Socialism is likely not the best term here, but when I'm referring to it economically I mean in the sense that the government has ownership of some businesses and is regulating other businesses as opposed to what would happen with laissez-faire capitalism.

Perhaps it is better to say that the U.S. is a mix between Capitalism (a market economy) and Communism (a command-based economy) as this article explains?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economy.asp

It is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of wealth disparity and income inequality.

That has not been my experience when visiting/living in other countries, but I am curious if you have some data to back this statement up?

Although I do agree that we have a problem with wealth disparity and income inequality.

I think we should look to other countries that have much higher levels of happiness (Such as Sweden) compared to the U.S. and try to imitate what they are doing.

Even in the case of looking to economies like what Sweden has, it is still a mixed economy. So completely doing away with capitalism is not something we should be striving for.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

Well the U.S. isn't entirely capitalist either.

On one extreme you have a completely free market economy.
On the other extreme you have an economy that's completely controlled by the government (such as Communism).

A pure free market economy doesn't really exist anywhere among all the countries, what we have instead are a lot of countries that try to find the right balance between letting the market control itself and having the government control the market.

So call it whatever you want, but the US does have a mixed economy when placed on that scale.

The US gini coefficient is 39.8 as of 2021. Making it one of the worst countries in the world for income inequality.

I don't know how you can say it's one of the worst when it's not even in the bottom third in that list of 162 countries.

According to that source, the worst country is South Africa with a Gini coefficient of 63.0.

The best country is Norway with a Gini Coefficient of 22.7.

The US. Ranks 57th with a Gini coefficient of 39.8.

If anything that places it in the middle rather than "one of the worst".

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 20 days ago

Also, it is ranked 57th when sorted worst to best. It is sorted at 120th from best to worst. Worse than 119 other nations.

Yes, 57th when sorted from worst to best, I never said otherwise.
And your numbers are a little off when sorting the other way around. There are only 162 countries with rankings in that list, so flipping it around puts the U.S. at 105th (behind 104 other nations).
Besides, we're looking at the Gini Coefficient which (with the countries on this list) has a range of ~23 to ~63, and a score of ~40 is right in the middle of that.
In no way is the U.S. at the top of that list, but I still don't see how you can consider it to be "one of the worst countries in the world for income inequality".

You've invented a thing and then are using your own invention to sort terms that have actual meanings not related to your invented scale

I mean, I'm trying to explain in other terms so that we can understand each other better?

And if I understand this right, you're saying that it doesn't make sense to create a scale where:

• one side of it is laissez fair capitalism, a completely free market economy with no government regulation
• the other side is an economy entirely run/controlled by the government with complete government regulation (such as communism)

Communism isn't a scale

I never said it was a scale. I just placed it at one end of the scale. The scale being "how much control a government has over the market."

On that scale, the U.S. is mostly capitalist, I have never said otherwise.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 19 days ago

Imagine a scale, on one end is a market economy where the government does not regulate it in any way, and does not own any part of it in any way. This is pure capitalism/laissez fair capitalism, whatever you want to call it. And you are correct, it does not exist today in any country (and that's a good thing in my opinion).

On the other end of that scale would be an economy that is completely controlled/owned/regulated by the government (for example, communism).

In economic terms, every country falls on that scale with some balance between a completely free market economy and how much regulation they impose as well as what kind of industries they control/own.

If someone is going to blame capitalism for "ruining everything" they are basically asking for a market system where everything is controlled/owned by the government. Where monopolies are rampant, and the citizens have no choice except for what the government or dictatorship has decided. In my opinion, this is also a bad choice.

If I am wrong about what they are asking for, feel free to point out the economy of a country that they are saying we should follow. In other words, if not capitalism, what are you asking for?

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 25 days ago

Whether it's "capitalist" or not doesn't matter. You could have government owned/created apps that make dumb decisions as well.

At least with capitalism you have the option to go somewhere else when a dumb decision is made.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 25 days ago (edited 24 days ago)

I think you're confusing the word "corporate" with "capitalism", they are not the same.

Edit: If you swap the word "capitalist" with "corporate" I completely agree with you.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 28 days ago

Why does almost every post in Technology have some comment trying to bring up the "capitalism bad" topic in some way?
Are you trying to say that Communism would have done a better job?
We've already seen how that has played out a few times already.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 28 days ago

No one mentioned an alternative to capitalism and communism is the first that comes to mind.

Realistically what we have throughout the world (economically) is a mixture between capitalism and socialism. Some countries place more restrictions on corporations than other do. We already get that capitalism isn't perfect, and I don't think any realistically "perfect" systems exist.

So, if you're going to make "capitalism is bad" comments, what are you proposing that is better than what most other countries are already using?

I'd be on board with it if we can show that it's better.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 1 month ago

Lemmy is definitely an echo chamber, but I agree that it's not necessarily a bad thing as long as we recognize it for what it is.
There are a large number of people out there that have very different opinions than the majority of users on this platform, we need to keep things respectful even in our disagreements with them instead of tearing them down for their opinions.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 1 month ago

This is why, in a lot of universities, they're trying to teach you how to learn, not necessarily how you should think.

We need to be able to examine the claims for ourselves and learn what red flags look like.

And a lot of the time we mix up "facts" with "opinions". Even when we are looking at facts, most of the time there are lies mixed with truth or conveniently forgotten truths. If we only get our information from a single source, or from biased sources, then we're going to miss some key information.

That's why it's good to make sure that you look at any story (especially politicized ones) from different angles and sources even if you don't agree with them.

Not only that but it can be enlightening to hear about a story from someone who's much more intimately familiar with the subject themselves.

For example, whenever it comes to news stories about the Supreme Court, I like to look for commentary from lawyers such as Steve Lehto or Legal Eagle. You'll find that they typically provide some very important context into why a particular decision was made that cuts through a lot of the outrage material that reporters push for clicks.

NotAnotherLemmyUser , 3 months ago

I'd rather have an easily repairable phone than a supposed "deterrent" for which workarounds are eventually found.